To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Administrative law and litigation.
Journal articles on the topic 'Administrative law and litigation'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Administrative law and litigation.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Jang, Hwijin. "Administrative litigation system and structure in the Russian Federation." Korean Administrative Law Association 24 (March 30, 2023): 263–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2023.24.263.
Full textAbstract:
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of Russian administrative litigation, incorporating legislation, case law, and academic scholarship, in order to introduce the system and structure of administrative litigation in the Russian Federation. Indeed, the structure of legal relationships in Russian administrative law is completely different from that in South Korea's administrative law, so there are many aspects that can be compared between Russian administrative litigation law and South Korea's administrative litigation law. Moreover, since administrative litigation law in all countries is based on administrative law, the administrative litigation law in the Russian Federation introduced in this paper can also be compared with South Korea's administrative litigation law.
Currently, the Russian administrative litigation system consists of administrative proceedings and administrative lawsuits. The administrative proceedings system has evolved based on the administrative proceedings system in the Soviet Union, while the administrative lawsuits system has been established in a completely different form from the administrative lawsuits system in the Soviet era. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian administrative litigation system treated administrative lawsuits as a special type of civil or commercial litigation, while categorizing administrative proceedings as a separate remedy under administrative law. However, with the enactment and implementation of the Administrative Lawsuit Law in 2015, administrative lawsuits were separated from civil and commercial lawsuits and established as an independent litigation system, establishing its own type of lawsuit, alongside the types of lawsuits enumerated in the Russian Constitution (constitutional lawsuits, civil lawsuits, criminal lawsuits, commercial lawsuits, and administrative lawsuits).
Administrative litigation in the Russian Federation refers to the administrative remedy under administrative law, which is carried out by the administrative adjudication committee established by law for administrative agencies or individual administrative systems. One characteristic of Russian administrative litigation is that the appellate body that can cancel or invalidate administrative decisions is the administrative adjudication committee of the superior agency or individual administrative system established by law, and the administrative agency cannot review its own administrative decision. In the case of administrative litigation, it is a full trial based on a lawsuit by the parties involved. The type of administrative litigation is distinguished based on whether the dispute has economic value and whether the administrative action is illegal. In the former case, it is classified into general administrative litigation and administrative commercial litigation, based on the existence of economic value in the administrative dispute. In the latter case, it is classified as administrative violation litigation based on whether there is illegality in the administrative action that imposes legal sanctions for the administrative punishment of illegal administrative acts by administrative authorities. Therefore, the types of administrative litigation in the Russian Federation are composed of 1) general administrative litigation for disputes between administrative entities regarding rights and obligations under administrative law, 2) administrative commercial litigation for disputes regarding economic rights and obligations under administrative law, and 3) administrative violation litigation for administrative punishment of illegal administrative acts by administrative authorities as a lawsuit material.
The characteristics of Russia's administrative litigation system are as follows. First, in administrative adjudication, administrative agencies are bound by their own administrative decisions and cannot review them on their own.
2
Jie, Huang. "On the Administrative Litigation Law." Chinese Law & Government 24, no. 3 (October 1991): 43–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/clg0009-4609240343.
Full text
3
Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna. "LAWSUIT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON PERMA NO. 6 OF 2018." Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 8, no. 3 (December 12, 2019): 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/jhp.8.3.2019.458-480.
Full textAbstract:
The enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration very much changes the paradigm of the proceedings in the State Administrative Court. One of the fundamental things is about administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. Under Article 75 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, citizens who feel disadvantaged by a Government’s Decision or Action can file an administrative proceedings, and then file a lawsuit in the Administrative Court. Regarding this regulation, two interpretations arise regarding the obligation of administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings. One party argues that the administrative proceedings as pre-litigation proceedings must be carried out before filing a lawsuit in the Court, and the other argues this is not mandatory. For a period of four years, the interpretation of the obligation of administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings in Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is floating in the realm of discourse. It was only on December 4th, 2018 that the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Guidelines for Resolving Disputes Regarding Government Administration After Administrative Proceedings, finally the Supreme Court dictates that administrative proceedings as a pre-litigation proceedings is a must. However, the PERMA does not regulate fundamental things regarding lawsuit after administrative proceedings, namely, who will be seated as the defendant, and what is the object of the lawsuit. In addition, there are also a number of things that needed to be reviewed regarding the arrangements in the PERMA, such as regarding the deadline for a lawsuit in the Court.
4
Liu, Yanjun, and Jiali Su. "Justification of the Administrative Public Interest Litigation System for Personal Information Protection." Public Administration Research 13, no. 2 (September 10, 2024): 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/par.v13n2p29.
Full textAbstract:
There is controversy over whether the public interest litigation clause in Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law includes administrative public interest litigation. However, in practice, the administrative public interest litigation mechanism focused on personal information protection has already been explored in the practice of prosecutorial public interest litigation. From a theoretical perspective, administrative public interest litigation for personal information protection has its institutional value, reflected in preventive value, equitable value, and compensatory value. From a normative perspective, the administrative public interest litigation system can be connected with the elements of the Personal Information Protection Law in terms of subject qualifications, application areas, initiation, and procedures. Article 70 of the Personal Information Protection Law reserves institutional space for the operation of the administrative public interest litigation mechanism, which can include the administrative public interest litigation system. From a practical perspective, it is necessary to demonstrate the practical necessity of administrative public interest litigation for personal information protection by organizing existing practices. The advantages of administrative public interest litigation can be significantly utilized in prosecutorial public interest litigation involving personal information protection, which helps to achieve the public interest governance goals of personal information protection.
5
Harnowo, T., and F. H. Habib. "The Use of Administrative Court for Climate Change Litigation." IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1270, no. 1 (December 1, 2023): 012016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1270/1/012016.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Climate change litigation is a litigation which directly and indirectly related to climate change or climate change policy. Administrative court is one of the forums where parties can challenge this issue. The broader competency of the Indonesian Administrative Court based on Government Administration Law, making issues regarding climate change caused by government actions can be resolved in a more favorable manner. This can be achieved through the addition of sustainability in General Principles of Good Corporate Governance. This paper will analyze relevant law and regulations, and cases to explore the advantages of administrative court in climate litigation. This paper provides a suggestion to optimize the role of Indonesia’s administrative court to be in accordance with the need of environmental protection.
6
Park, Jae-Yoon. "Standing to sue in Administrative Litigation and Control Strategy of Administrative State." Korean Administrative Law Association 22 (March 30, 2022): 47–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2022.22.47.
Full textAbstract:
With the recent prolonged Covid-19 crisis, the phenomenon of the administrative state, in which state functions are concentrated in the administration in crisis situations, is strengthening. Administrative litigation is the most important means of control over the executive from the perspective of the rule of law. In addition, it is natural that administrative litigation is aimed at relieving the rights of citizens. The question has been whether the two functions will be limited only to the subjective function, especially in appeals suit. This controversy stems from Article 81 of the Constitution. Today's understanding of administrative litigation has a fundamental relationship with how Congress and the judiciary distribute state authority with respect to the administration to effectively exercise national sovereignty.
There has been a continuous confrontation of positions over the interpretation of ‘legal interests’ in Article 12 of Administrative Litigation Act. This is the confrontation between so-called the subjective litigation theory and the objective litigation theory. Until recently, mainstream opinions were based on the Subjective Public Right Theory of Germany.
This theory has an undemocratic origin in its beginning. This still has a problem in that even in a democratized modern state, the administrative state phenomenon still appears according to the actual separation of powers, and the administration that should be controlled determines the scope of the controller. Therefore, the limitations of theory must be overcome by theory.
From this point of view, this study examines the discussions on the revision of Administrative Litigation Act over the past 20 years. Both Supreme Court's amendment and Ministry of Justice's amendment failed to lead to actual legislation and were unsuccessful. However, as a methodological struggle arising from the fundamental origin of Korea's administrative litigation law system, academic meaning can be found in its own way. After Ministry of Justice's proposal for a compromised solution, many scholars now support the view that the law should be revised and interpreted relatively consistently in the direction of expanding standing to sue.
According to a review in this study, it is confirmed that the Supreme Court is gradually moving away from the classical methodology that determines the protection of private interests by the underlying law. This is based on the fact that our legislation takes a typical legislative technology that sets the purpose around the public interest and establishes an administrative agency to establish a basis for public interest obligations and administrative actions. It can be evaluated that precedents have intuitively broken through the limitations of this legislative method in a way that considers factual interests. Here, a typology for deriving a profit situation emerges as an important methodology.
As a strategy to expand standing to sue, I suggested paying attention to eligible interest theory and legality guarantee theory. Furthermore, various strategies of types were reviewed, and a plan to allow class action was suggested. The above discussion is a review of the issue of standing to sue in terms of legal control over administration as a task of administrative litigation and needs to be further emphasized in relation to the recent phenomenon of the administrative state.
7
Xiao, Shiling. "State-centric proportionality analysis in Chinese administrative litigation." International Journal of Constitutional Law 21, no. 2 (April 1, 2023): 461–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad051.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article examines the application of proportionality in Chinese administrative litigation over the last two decades and argues that courts in administrative litigation that serve the party-state and tend to uphold state/collective interest have altered proportionality to be state-centric. It finds that the courts invoked proportionality in a negligible portion of all administrative litigation judgments and had inadequate emphases on protecting individual rights. Proportionality has not appreciably assisted the courts in enhancing their oversight of governmental power and protection of individual rights. This article suggests that this is attributable to the restricted function of administrative litigation in China’s party-state governance structure and owing to the country’s long-held belief that public interest takes precedence over individual rights. Administrative litigation, which China’s ruling party employs to resolve principal–agent issues, is seriously constrained. The courts are expected to review the formal legality of executive actions, but not their substance. Informed by the Chinese human rights belief, which favors collectivism over individualism, the courts are skewed toward public interest in the balancing analysis when applying proportionality.
8
Chiper, Natalia, and Mariana Odainic. "Public law legal entity." Administrarea Publica, no. 3(111) (September 2021): 39–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.52327/1813-8489.2021.3(111).03.
Full textAbstract:
After the entry into force of the Administrative Code of Republic of Moldova, the legal person under public law becomes a complex research topic. Taking into account the fact that, the Administrative Code of Republic of Moldova operates only with the notion of ,,public authority”, notions such as ,,public institution” and / or those legal entities of private law remain in the shadows which, in turn, by Law 714/200 on administrative litigation (repealed) were equivalent to public authorities, including in litigation cases. Of course, the above positions are not the only problematic moments in the judicial doctrine and practice, along the way the issue indicated in this article remains to be researched and argued continuously.
9
Zhao, Qinglin. "On the Nature of Judicial Review of Administrative Normative Documents." Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute 40, no. 1 (March 30, 2024): 149–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2024.40.1.149.
Full textAbstract:
Administrative Normative Documents are simultaneously administrative and legal which determines that there are objectively two different types of judicial review for administrative normative documents, namely administrative trial review and legal applicability review. From the perspective of review conditions and results, the judicial review of administrative normative documents stipulated in the current Administrative Litigation Law can only be considered as a legal applicability review. The legal applicability review is a necessary part of judicial trial, and is not a unique issue in administrative litigation. It is not only related to administrative normative documents and should not be specifically stipulated in the Administrative Litigation Law, but should be stipulated in the Constitution or the Court Organization Law. From the perspective of legal applicability review, there are also many problems in the current law regarding the intensity and procedures of judicial review. Finally, the legal applicability review cannot fulfill the function of legal supervision over administrative normative documents. China still needs to consider the necessity and possibility of establishing some kind of administrative trial review.
10
Simanjuntak, Enrico. "THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JURISDICTION REGARDING CIVIL SERVANT DISPUTE." Jurnal Hukum Peratun 4, no. 1 (March 26, 2022): 67–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/peratun.412021.67-88.
Full textAbstract:
The development of personnel law regarding litigation has experienced tremendous development, but some of the latest literature in the field of personnel law is still referring to the mechanism of litigation that is already irrelevant. As is known now after the enactment of the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 6 of 2018 concerning Government Administration Dispute Resolution Guidelines After Taking Administrative Review, the principle applies so long as it is not determined otherwise by certain sectoral regulations (lex specialis), submitting a claim to the State Administrative Court (PTUN) must first take administrative efforts internally or quasi-judicial institution (lex generalis). As the initial intention of the State Civil Apparatus Act (UU Aparatur Sipil Negara), now the resolution of personnel disputes must be preceded by internal administrative review before being submitted to the State Administrative Court.
11
Olazabal Cabral, Margarida. "The Reform of Portuguese Administrative Litigation." European Public Law 13, Issue 3 (September 1, 2007): 407–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/euro2007024.
Full text
12
Wang, Xingyu. "The Procedural Rules of Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation Have Been Improved." Scientific Journal Of Humanities and Social Sciences 6, no. 9 (September 17, 2024): 119–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/she48e16.
Full textAbstract:
Environmental administrative public interest litigation plays an important role in promoting the construction of modern environmental governance system and enhancing the ability of ecological environmental protection and governance. However, since the formal establishment of environmental administrative public interest litigation system is relatively late, it is still in the exploratory stage. Therefore, in practice, the main body of environmental administrative public interest litigation is too simple, the judgment criteria for the commencement of litigation proceedings are controversial, and the consultation mechanism in the pre-litigation procedure is not perfect. Based on the fundamental position of ecological protection, considering the particularity of environmental damage and combining with some typical environmental administrative public interest litigation cases, it is proposed to improve the procedural rules of environmental administrative public interest litigation by appropriately expanding the scope of litigation subjects, taking behavioral standards as the judgment criteria for performing duties according to law, and strengthening the consultation provisions of both parties in pre-litigation procedures.
13
Săraru, Cătălin-Silviu. "A Cross-Country Examination: Administrative Litigation in China and Romania." Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 6, no. 3 (July 31, 2023): 232–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-6.3-a000313.
Full textAbstract:
Background: In this article, we have analysed the way in which the balance between public interest and private interest is achieved in administrative litigation in Romania and China. The research aims to highlight the distinct ways of solving the specific problems of this legal institution by the legislator and capitalise on the positive aspects.Methods: The article uses the historical method of analysing the evolution of administrative litigation in the two countries diachronically and the comparative method that explains the similarities and differences existing at the regulatory level in the two systems. The comparison will be based on the law that regulates administrative litigation in each state and on doctrinal and jurisprudential interpretations. Results and Conclusions: Despite adopting the first administrative litigation law in China in 1989, and Romania in 1990 after the r evolution of 1989 and the return to democracy, both countries have made remarkable progress in the last decades. This progress provides assurance for the protection of fundamental human rights in the adoption of administrative decisions and their subsequent judicial control.
14
Jin, Yinhuan. "A study on Environmental Public Interest Litigation of Chinese Administrative Litigation Law." Public Law Journal 24, no. 4 (November 30, 2023): 177–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.31779/plj.24.4.202311.007.
Full text
15
Khaleel Suliman Khaleel Al rhamnah, Khaleel Suliman Khaleel Al rhamnah. "Formal defenses in the administrative case and its relationship to the substantive defenses in Jordan: الدفوع الشكلية في الدعوى الإدارية وعلاقتها بالدفوع الموضوعية في الأردن." مجلة العلوم الإقتصادية و الإدارية و القانونية 6, no. 12 (May 1, 2022): 110–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.26389/ajsrp.l110122.
Full textAbstract:
The study aims to clarify the formal defenses in the administrative case, and their relationship to the substantive defenses in Jordan in the absence of a law governing administrative litigation procedures, given that the Jordanian Administrative Judiciary Law No. 27 of 2014 referred the litigation procedures before the administrative judiciary to the Civil Procedure Code in what was not mentioned in it. A text in the Administrative Judiciary Law, and in a manner that does not conflict with the nature of the administrative lawsuit, which is characterized by a special nature that differs from the civil judiciary, and therefore the research problem lies in the absence of texts regulating the procedures of the administrative lawsuit in line with its nature. The administrative case, as well as the relationship of these defenses with the substantive defenses that relate to the origin of the right, and our difference between the defenses in the administrative case and the requests submitted by the litigants and the relationship of each to the other, as well as the role of the administrative judge in directing the lawsuit procedures, and we reached a set of results and recommendations represented in the need for a law regulating procedures Litigation before the administrative courts.
16
Corcenco, Aliona. "Аdvantages of the specialization of judges in matters of administrative litigation." Supremacy of Law, no. 2 (July 2024): 66–73. https://doi.org/10.52388/2345-1971.2023.2.07.
Full textAbstract:
The institution of administrative litigation is an important branch of the legal system, which deals with the resolution of disputes and conflicts between the public administration and citizens or other private entities. This institution is essential for ensuring compliance with legality and fairness in the activity of the public administration and for protecting the rights and interests of citizens. The main role of the administrative litigation courts is to control the administrative acts issued by the authorities and to check whether they respect the law and the fundamental rights of the citizens, and the specialization of the judges will improve the quality of justice. In the same way, the efficiency of the courts will be improved. The specialization of judges is necessary due to increasingly complex legislation and the high workload of judges. This means that, since a judge examines only one type of file, for example in the matter of administrative litigation, then the decisions issued by him will be more qualitative. And this is because the magistrate works only in the field of administrative justice.
17
Portillo, Shannon. "The Adversarial Process of Administrative Claims." Administration & Society 49, no. 2 (July 28, 2016): 257–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399714541267.
Full textAbstract:
Although administrative hearings are not formal litigation, the process often resembles traditional adversarial adjudication. There are two parties, one has the burden of proof, both present evidence, and there is a ruling on the legal merits. Substantively, the hearing focuses on eligibility for benefits. Procedurally, the hearing runs like traditional courtroom litigation. Based on direct observation of 45 unemployment insurance claims and interviews with administrative law judges (ALJs), I find ALJs behave differently when there is no legal counsel present. Whereas the law that governs the hearing remains the same, the process for pro se claimants is substantively different.
18
Chenxi, Zhou. "Cause Analysis and Enlightenment of “Certainty” in China’s Anti-monopoly Administrative Law Enforcement and Prospect of Law Enforcement in Tobacco Industry." Tobacco Regulatory Science 7, no. 5 (September 30, 2021): 1585–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.18001/trs.7.5.81.
Full textAbstract:
China’s anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement is highly certain, that is, most parties generally abandon the filing of administrative lawsuits after receiving the punishment decision made by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency. “Certainty“ is formed by the three factors: illegal acts generally lack actionable value; the parties lack reasonable expectations towards changing the punishment way and reducing the punishment amount; and there are abundant formal punishment and substantive reconciliation. In this context, it is necessary to build scientific law enforcement rules and flexible law enforcement mechanisms to reduce false interventions in “false positives”. At the same time, we need perfect the anti-monopoly follow-up litigation to reinforce the link between anti-monopoly civil litigation and administrative law enforcement. However, in industries with monopoly license such as tobacco industry, it is also necessary to explore the establishment of a public interest litigation mechanism to protect the interests of market subjects at the same time of safeguarding social public interests.
19
Assa, Natasha. "How Arbitrary Was Tsarist Administrative Justice? The Case of the Zemstvos Petitions to the Imperial Ruling Senate, 1866–1916." Law and History Review 24, no. 1 (2006): 1–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0738248000002261.
Full textAbstract:
One of the key principles of the modern legal state (Rechtsstaat) is the right of all citizens to seek judicial protection against unlawful acts of government officials. It stems from the fundamental principle of the rule of law that asserts that all citizens, including state officials, are equal before the law and have the right to a fair trial. Within this legal framework a distinct field of law, “administrative justice,” governs public litigation against state officials. Its domain of jurisdiction reflects complex philosophical and legal distinctions between the public and private spheres in the modern state. As legal scholars and philosophers continuously redefine the boundary between the public and private spheres, the prerogatives of government officials over the rights of private citizens continue to evolve. The key questions in the debate are as follows. Should the state guarantee an undisputed precedence of citizens’ rights over administration or should it protect its officials from widespread litigation and therefore grant them a certain degree of immunity? Should ordinary courts and laws decide disputes between government officials and private individuals, or should the state provide separate norms, judges, and procedures for administrative litigation? Should punishment for misuse of administrative power be equal to that of the breach of civil or criminal laws? Who and to what extent should be made liable for any damages incurred through misuse of administrative power?
20
Putrijanti, Aju, Tri Laksmi Indreswari, Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan, Sri Wahyu Ananingsih, and Anggita Doramia Lumbanraja. "Enforcement of environmental law through citizen lawsuit in administrative court." E3S Web of Conferences 605 (2025): 03008. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202560503008.
Full textAbstract:
Environmental law had been enforced through by non-litigation or litigation. CLS is a litigation strategy used to file lawsuit against government for failing to deliver and fulfill citizen’s rights. The damage of the environmental can be harmful to humans. CLS used to file to General Court, however some cases were granted, and others were denied. The CLS regulation for environmental dispute existed following the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2023 which provided Guidance to Adjudicate Environmental Cases. Based on research as spesific finding there was no CLS was presented to the Administrative Court one year following the stipulation. Despite the importance of technical assistance for judges, the Supreme Court only provided it in 2024.The Administrative Court weilds significant power and authority to enforce environmental laws and protect the environmental for future generations. Specifically, CLS it demonstrates that government through the court body, tried to fulfill environmental citizen’s rights.
21
Kim, Chul Woo. "Current Status and Legal Tasks for Administrative Litigation Rules." Korean Administrative Law Association 26 (March 30, 2024): 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2024.26.1.
Full textAbstract:
The Administrative Litigation Rules were established based on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Originating from England and America, the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court aims to ensure the independence and expertise of the judiciary branch. In Korea, the Supreme Court is granted broad discretion to establish rules regarding litigation procedures, internal regulations, and administrative procedures under the Constitution, even without the basis of law. However, Article 108 of the Constitution contrasts with Anglo-American systems in that the Article recognizes the supremacy of law over conflicting statutory and Supreme Court Rules, thereby affirming the principle of legal superiority.
The Administrative Litigation Act has prompted demands for reform from academia, as it has long been left as is since its comprehensive revision in 1984. Now that the Administrative Litigation Rules have been established, such demands are expected to be met to a significant extent. It is noteworthy that the rules reflect significant aspects of past judicial precedents and legal principles adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to interpreting provisions of the Administrative Litigation Act, or common practices implemented without legal basis. However, uniformly regulating substantive legal interpretations based on Supreme Court Rules may contradict the purpose of Article 108 of the Constitution. Moreover, even for matters concerning litigation procedures, it is more preferable to regulate essential issues on realizing citizens' fundamental rights directly by law.
In Korea, the process of establishing Supreme Court Rules is devoid of involvement from the National Assembly, and the sole procedural controls are inquiries of opinions from relevant agencies and prior announcements of legislation. Relying solely on such procedures, however, is limited in securing democratic legitimacy. Because judicial reviews for unlawful Supreme Court Rules are carried out by the same body responsible for the establishment, concerns arise over the effectiveness of judiciary controls. Therefore, supplementary legal measures thereof are called for, as well as proactive efforts for the revision of the Administrative Litigation Act.
22
Noll, David. "MDL as Public Administration." Michigan Law Review, no. 118.3 (2019): 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.36644/mlr.118.3.mdl.
Full textAbstract:
From the Deepwater Horizon disaster to the opioid crisis, multidistrict litigation—or simply MDL—has become the preeminent forum for devising solutions to the most difficult problems in the federal courts. MDL works by refusing to follow a regular procedural playbook. Its solutions are case specific, evolving, and ad hoc. This very flexibility, however, provokes charges that MDL violates basic requirements of the rule of law. At the heart of these charges is the assumption that MDL is simply a larger version of the litigation that takes place every day in federal district courts. But MDL is not just different in scale than ordinary litigation; it is different in kind. In structure and operation, MDL parallels programs like Social Security in which an administrative agency continuously develops new procedures to handle a high volume of changing claims. Accordingly, MDL is appropriately judged against the “administrative” rule of law that emerged in the decades after World War II and underpins the legitimacy of the modern administrative state. When one views MDL as an administrative program instead of a larger version of ordinary civil litigation, the real threats to its legitimacy come into focus. The problem is not that MDL is ad hoc. Rather, it is that MDL lacks the guarantees of transparency, public participation, and ex post review that administrative agencies have operated under since the middle of the twentieth century. The history of the administrative state suggests that MDL’s continued success as a forum for resolving staggeringly complex problems depends on how it addresses these governance deficits.
23
Jiang, Han, Patricia Blazey, Yan Wang, and Hope Ashiabor. "China's new approach to environmental governance and environmental public interest litigation." Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 23, no. 1 (May 15, 2020): 39–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/apjel.2020.01.02.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the comprehensive reform of the Chinese environmental governance system since the early 2010s after the goal of constructing ecological civilization was integrated into China's state policies. Legislative changes have been undertaken in order to improve the environmental governance system and juridical environmental protection has been reinforced to tackle environmental challenges through a revised public interest litigation system. China's current environmental public interest litigation system consists of civil environmental public interest litigation and administrative environmental public interest litigation. Only procuratorates have standing in administrative environmental public interest litigation whereas environmental non-government organizations who are permitted to undertake civil cases are in practice marginalized. Individuals, on the other hand, do not have standing in either civil or administrative environmental public interest litigation cases. The ecological and environmental damages litigation system has been established in order to recognize government agencies that have standing in protecting environmental public interest.
24
LEE, YOON JUNG. "Re-examination of the function of the concept of “Streitgegenstand” in a revocation suit." Korean Administrative Law Association 24 (March 30, 2023): 121–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2023.24.121.
Full textAbstract:
“Streitgegenstand” is the criterion for determining the subject of judgment by the court in a lawsuit and sorting out duplicate lawsuits. Unlike civil litigation, which is difficult to determine whether the subject of judgment is the same, cancellation litigation is subject to disposition, so the unit of litigation is determined immediately by disposition.
However, due to the recent tendency to expand disposition, there are cases where legal issues are the same between separate lawsuits with different dispositions subject to litigation. In particular, if the disposition of each administrative action is recognized between the administrative actions in stages, difficult situations may arise regarding the succession of defects under the substantive law, changes in lawsuits under the litigation law, and the filing period.
Until now, it has not been difficult to determine “Streitgegenstand” in cancellation litigation because the scope of “Streitgegenstand” has been determined as a unit of individual specific disposition. However, as society becomes more complex, administrative procedures become important, and administrative decision-making processes are subdivided, the number of dispositions of relationships that are virtually difficult to see as separate is increasing.
Disposition, a litigation requirement for cancellation litigation, has performed a function of preventing duplicate litigation to some extent by converging the subject of litigation among multiple administrative actions or continuous dispositions that confirm the same issue. However, the tendency to expand disposition intensifies this problem.
Therefore, in easing the litigation requirement of disposition, it is necessary to keep in mind the function of the concept of litigation that disposition has been performing. It should be solved in harmony with problems such as fairness and filing period. In addition, if a disposition that is different from the purpose of the revocation judgment is valid as a result, it is necessary to recognize the obligation to restore the original state as the content of the binding force in order to carry out the purpose of the judgment.
25
Disantara, Fradhana Putra, Ratna Maya Permatasari A. B, Fawaidil Ilmiah, and Ruetaitip Chansrakaeo. "The Integralistic State Idea: Reconstruction of Administrative Efforts Perspective." Jurnal Daulat Hukum 6, no. 2 (July 4, 2023): 130. http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v6i2.30982.
Full textAbstract:
Administrative efforts as part of the state administrative and legal process must be taken as an initial means before the settlement is carried out in court. In this case, administrative efforts are efforts to optimize non-litigation dispute resolution steps. This study attempts to present a prescription for administrative efforts associated with the idea of an integralistic state. This research is legal research. This study uses primary legal materials, including the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, and Supreme Court Regulation No. 6 of 2018. Secondary legal materials include books, articles, and other scientific works, especially those related to the idea of an integralist state initiated by Supomo. Non-legal materials include legal dictionaries. The approach in this study uses a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the study confirm that the mandatory administrative effort in the Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration is a progressive step because it emphasizes the values of the civilized nation, which focuses more on non-litigation dispute resolution. In addition, the reconstruction of the practice of administrative efforts needs to be carried out by socializing and providing an understanding of the importance of administrative efforts as well as the need for technical guidelines for the implementation of administrative efforts in each institution as well as increase the capacity of institutional leaders.
26
SĂRARU, Cătălin-Silviu, and Cristina Elena POPA TACHE. "AN OVERVIEW OF CERTAIN TENDENCIES IN EXTENDING THE CONCEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW." Journal of Knowledge Dynamics 1, no. 1 (August 30, 2024): 61–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.56082/jkd.2024.1.61.
Full textAbstract:
The article explores the dynamics of administrative litigation in the European Union, with a focus on the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in settling disputes. It analyzes the limits of the discretionary power of the EU institutions and how the Court of Justice provides a judicial review of their decisions. It also discusses the potential for extending the concept of administrative litigation in international law and the existing mechanisms for settling disputes between states and international organizations. The subtle landscape of administrative disputes in international law is recalled, highlighting their importance in the context of various global disciplines often narrowly contextualized at the regional level. It outlines the aspects of this field, which encompasses the means by which disputes between individuals or entities (such as international organizations) and administrative authorities at the international level are resolved. Central themes include the protection of human rights and the promotion of good governance, highlighting the potential benefits of establishing a hierarchy of norms in the face of associated challenges. Remarkably, although the concept of administrative litigation differs in public international law from domestic law, recent developments suggest a possible extension of the concept, leading to some legal and administrative mutations. The solutions are the permeability of the systems and their adaptation and adequacy to the foreseen changes.
27
Sharma, Divya, and Richa Joshi. "Public Interest Litigation and its Dimensions in Administrative Law." Gibs Law Journal 5, no. 1 (2023): 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2582-7529.2023.00010.8.
Full text
28
Dragos, Dacian Cosmin, and Bogdana Neamtu. "Effectiveness of Administrative Appeals - Empirical Evidence from Romanian Local Administration." Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government 11, no. 1 (January 17, 2013): 71–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.4335/233.
Full textAbstract:
Before resorting to a court for the annulment/modification of an administrative decision, an interested party has the possibility of challenging the decision before the administration itself. The (internal) administrative appeal is addressed to the issuing public authority (or to the higher public authority). Administrative appeals have always been considered an affordable tool for alternative dispute resolution in administrative matters, and a way of reducing the burden of litigation on the courts. The present article endeavors to make an analysis of the issues related to this topic. Empirical research conducted at the level of local public administrative authorities in Romania shows the importance and effectiveness of administrative appeals, in spite of the (sometimes) discouraging provisions of
the law
29
Shen, Guang. "Court–Government Interaction in the Context of Administrative Litigation and Competition Enforcement in China." China: An International Journal 21, no. 4 (November 2023): 191–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.56159/chn.2023.a913145.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: Widespread court–government interaction over the past 15 years challenges the conventional view that such interaction should be banned in the context of administrative litigation. Indeed, underpinning institutions enable courts and governments to coordinate and cooperate in law enforcement. In addition, first-hand litigation materials demonstrate that court–government interaction has yielded some benefits regarding law enforcement. To alleviate judicial unfairness and to realise an outcome whereby the pros outweigh the cons, ex parte communication should be prohibited, while other forms of court–government interaction should be maintained. Drawing on the lessons from court–government interaction in the context of administrative litigation in general, this article suggests that benign interaction between courts and competition agencies could enhance competition enforcement. The author deduces from the findings that China follows its own path on the rule of law, which exhibits its own characteristics.
30
Latournerie, Marie-Aimée. "Reflections on the Development of French Administrative Courts." European Public Law 6, Issue 3 (September 1, 2000): 401–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/274624.
Full textAbstract:
The French Cours administratives d'appel have now been operating for ten years. This article describes the workload of these courts and the impact which this has had on the workload of the Conseil d'Etat. While the Conseil d'Etat is increasingly a court of dealing with points of law, it continues to deal with a large number of cases because of the general increase in administrative litigation affecting all courts.
31
Park, Hyun Jung. "Judicial Control of Authoritative Administrative Investigations." Korean Administrative Law Association 25 (September 30, 2023): 337–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2023.25.337.
Full textAbstract:
The judicial control of administrative investigations can be classified into two categories: the subject of control can be either ① the decision to conduct an investigation or ② the investigation as an execution of the said decision. Type of litigation can also differ accordingly: one can either file for an appeal litigation and a temporary suspension of execution against the administrative decision to conduct an investigation and argue that the above decision is illegal; or dispute the legality of such decision or its execution in a criminal proceeding; or file an appeal litigation against an administrative sanction and contend the lawfulness of the decision for investigation or its execution upon which the above sanction is imposed. Judicial review of administrative investigations can also take place in appeal litigation or criminal proceedings when administrative sanctions or criminal penalties are imposed for refusing, disturbing, or evading investigations. This article first clarifies the concept and scope of ‘authoritative administrative investigations’ as the subject of judicial control. Next, it analyzes the possible means of judicial review (types of litigation) and the criteria for detecting the illegality of the decision for administrative investigation and its subsequent execution. It also identifies the limits of judicial control in its existing system. Lastly, this article examines the means, both through interpretation of current law and through legislation, to deny the admissibility of evidence collected from unlawfully conducted administrative investigation and to effectively guarantee the right to legal assistance and the right to remain silent in administrative investigations.
32
Zhang, Zhongsen. "Research on the legal framework of personal information privacy protection in automated administrative environment: centered on data security and rights balance." Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences 4, no. 3 (March 28, 2024): 337–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/9kwajf63.
Full textAbstract:
In the digital age, with the increasing importance of personal information, especially in the field of automated administration, the protection of personal information is particularly urgent. Ensuring the security of personal information in automated administration not only helps to safeguard the realization of individual dignity rights and meet the inherent requirements of the principle of proportionality, but also regulates the use of algorithms to avoid discrimination. However, although the legislation on the protection of personal information in automated administration has made some progress, there are still some shortcomings: the legislation is not directly specified, the law is not operable, the supervision and management mechanism is not perfect; There are also problems at the law enforcement level: improper use of immunity in administrative procedures, excessive expansion of the scope of personal information processing; In the relief aspect, there are also challenges: the provisions of administrative public interest litigation are vague, and there are loopholes in the way of liability. In order to improve the protection mechanism of personal information in automated administration, it is necessary to expand the direct regulation of automated administration in legislation, enhance the operability of laws, and improve the supervision and management mechanism of personal information. At the same time, it is also necessary to amend the administrative due process and strictly implement the principle of least necessity at the level of law enforcement. In terms of relief, the applicable rules of administrative public interest litigation should be clarified, and more targeted ways of assigning blame should be established.
33
Putra, Muhammad Amin. "OPTIMIZATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISMISSAL PROCESS AND PREPARATORY EXAMINATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS THROUGH ELECTRONIC JUDICIARY." Jurnal Hukum Peratun 5, no. 1 (February 28, 2022): 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/peratun.512022.57-74.
Full textAbstract:
Since the promulgation of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 concerning the Administration of Cases and Litigation in Electronic Court (PERMA No. 1 of 2019), the administrative processes of cases and hearing in courts are carried out electronically. However, the PERMA did not accommodate the need for dispute examination in the administrative court, especially regarding the existence of the dismissal process and preparatory examination. Therefore, this paper is made to examine what steps are needed so that the dismissal process and preparatory examination can be carried out using the e-court application. This paper uses a legal-normative method, namely an approach based on legal materials in the form of laws and regulations, as well as literature related to the theme of this paper. This paper demonstrates that the dismissal process and preparatory examination can be carried out through a revision of PERMA no. 1 of 2019. In addition, further studies are needed regarding the specifics of the procedural law of the administrative court in the implementation of this e-litigation, due to the fact that the dismissal process and preparatory examination are part of the litigation process in the administrative court.
34
Syromiatnykov, E. O. "Historical and legal overview of Public Interest Litigation as an institute of Administrative Justice." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 1, no. 80 (January 22, 2024): 568–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2023.80.1.87.
Full textAbstract:
The article provides a historical and legal characterization of the institution of a Public Interest Litigation in general and in the context of administrative proceedings. The author reveals the historical origins of this institute from the time of Roman law, where it was called “actio popularis”. Some of the most common constructions of such claims in Roman law are highlighted. The author emphasizes the public benefit of filing such claims despite their private law nature. The author emphasizes the dualism between private and public interests in law, which is particularly evident in the institution of a Public Interest Litigation. The terminology used in different legal systems to describe the institution of a public interest action or its individual varieties is revealed: “actio popularis”, “Public Interest Litigation”, “Public Interest Law”, “Social Interest Litigation”. The author outlines the main areas in which Public Interest Litigation is most often applied: environmental protection, anti-discrimination, etc. The author analyzes the reasons for the low interest in the institution of public interest litigation in previous historical periods in Ukraine. On the other hand, it is suggested that there has been a significant increase in interest in such lawsuits in recent years, which is due to certain factors. These include: the development of civil society and the increased interest of legislators in this institution, as well as the ratification by Ukraine of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). The last point was important in the context of the further adoption by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of the decision of 11.12.2018 in case No. 910/8122/17, which stated the right of environmental associations to file lawsuits in the public interest on these matters. The article concludes with the emphasis on the prospects for further research into the application of actio popularis in foreign jurisdictions with a view to exploring the possibilities for expanding the number of legal relations in which such claims may be filed in Ukraine.
35
Johnston, Jason Scott. "Law, Judicial Review, and Formal Models of the Regulation Game: A Comment on de Figueiredo & de Figueiredo." Business and Politics 4, no. 2 (August 2002): 183–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1037.
Full textAbstract:
In “The Allocation of Resources by Interest Groups: Lobbying, Litigation and Administrative Regulation,” (hereafter referred to as LLAR), John and Rui de Figueiredo make an important contribution to our understanding of how interest groups choose between lobbying and litigation strategies in the regulation game. Their work demonstrates the value of formally modeling the regulation game by distinguishing between lobbying and litigation. Drawing upon my own related work, in this brief comment I will focus upon some of the implications of formal models of lobbying and litigation for our understanding of how regulatory incentives are affected by judicial review and alternative statutory regimes. I hope to atleast suggest that in addition to illuminating many crucial issues in political science—such as the theory of lobbying and theories of political disadvantage—the sort of approach taken by the de Figueiredos has great significance for the analysis of some fundamental issues in administrative law and public law more generally.
36
TENKAEV, A. Yu. "THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF ISOLATION OF NON-CLAIM CASES’ LITIGATION INTO THE SEPARATE TYPE OF LITIGATION." Herald of Civil Procedure 11, no. 1 (April 20, 2021): 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-1-78-88.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the analysis of theoretical-methodological problems of isolation of non-claim cases’ litigation into the separate type of litigation. Classic types of litigation are listed, it is mentioned that the basic litigation in all meanings is claim litigation, its main feature is the dispute about law. In contrast beginning from the Roman law there are legal cases that have undisputable character. The main terms for the naming of such cases are searched: special litigation, protective litigation, voluntary jurisdiction. The author came to the conclusion that no one of them can be an universal term adequately reflecting the essence of this type of cases. The term “non-claim cases’ litigation” is suggested as the most suitable option. The study also notes that this approach can be taken into account by legislative bodies when making changes to procedural legislation, including in connection with the prospect of identifying the appropriate type in administrative proceedings. In addition, the study presents a retrospective analysis of individual institutions of civil procedural law, in a broad sense, and procedural thought.
37
Worrall, John L. "Administrative Determinants of Civil Liability Lawsuits Against Municipal Police Departments: An Exploratory Analysis." Crime & Delinquency 44, no. 2 (April 1998): 295–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128798044002007.
Full textAbstract:
Most contributions to the police civil liability literature have described trends in the incidence of suits, the outcomes of actual cases, or the impact litigation has on police departments. This article outlines a predictive model of administrative determinants of civil litigation against police. Specifically, it asks: Do police administrators influence trends in litigation? Data drawn from the 1993 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey and from a 1996 survey of 248 police departments suggest that interest in minority recruitment, method of civilian review, and commitment to community-oriented policing affect the incidence of suits. Potential problems with research in this area are discussed.
38
Bimasakti, Muhammad Adiguna. "RENEWING THE LAW OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT POST-REFORMATION IN THE ERA OF ELECTRONIC LITIGATION." Jurnal Hukum Peratun 3, no. 2 (March 5, 2021): 111–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/peratun.322020.111-126.
Full textAbstract:
In the past decade there has been a massive reform in the Indonesian judiciary system, especially regarding State Administrative Court. As from the enactment of Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Openness of Public Information, until the enactment of Law No. 9 of 2018 concerning Non-Tax State Revenues opened a tap that expands the competence/authority of the State Administrative Court so that not only the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding that of individual-concrete administrative decision (beschikking) but also the authority to adjudicate all types of administrative decisions as long as they are not statutory regulations, and also to adjudicate disputes regarding administrative factual-deed. Morover, within the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019 also opened a new paradigm about Electronic Litigation. This paper will discuss the urgency of renewing the State Administrative Court Law in terms of expanding absolute competence, the implementation of Electronic Litigation, and also about synchronization with other laws and regulations. The method used in this paper is library research that is research that takes resources from relevant literature. In this paper it can be concluded that it is deemed necessary to reform the substance in the obsolete State Administrative Court Law.
39
French, Susannah T. "Judicial Review of the Administrative Record in NEPA Litigation." California Law Review 81, no. 4 (July 1993): 929. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3480890.
Full text
40
YI, HYE JIN. "Administrative Planning Legislation in Japan: In terms of discussions after the revision of Administrative Case Litigation Act and the Basic Policy." Korean Administrative Law Association 25 (September 30, 2023): 467–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.59826/kdps.2023.25.467.
Full textAbstract:
In broad terms, the issues and concerns surrounding administrative planning align between the Japanese and Korean administrative law systems. However, relevant discussions have diverged following the Japanese revision of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in 2004. A distinct feature of the legal discourse in Japan's administrative planning system is its focus on understanding administrative planning within the flow of various administrative activities or the administrative process itself. The Japanese discussions on controlling the widely acknowledged planning discretion, substantive or procedural, follow a pattern similar to those in Korea. However, they diverge slightly in the discussion about ‘judgment process review,’ which begins with confirming the stage at which discretion is exercised in the administrative planning process, and in the converged opinion on using ‘litigation to confirm illegality’ for party litigation. Although specific discussions took place on administrative planning proposed during the revision of the Administrative Case Litigation Act in 2004, it is unfortunate that such discussions have not been applied actively over the past 20 years. However, proposals have since been made for administrative hearings or new types of litigation formats suitable for disputes related to administrative planning, which offer significant insights for Korea.
On the other hand, the ‘basic policy’ implemented under the name of ‘planning’ in administrative practice has drawn less attention because it is related to setting the definition and scope of administrative planning and does not directly impact citizens' rights and interests. In Japan, however, so-called induction-type and guideline-type plans are used in various administrative affairs and serve as a means for state control over local governments. This study aims to draw implications for the Korean legal system by examining recent challenges in Japan’s administrative planning and discussions aimed at solving them.
41
계경문. "A Evaluation for Revision of Vietnamese Administrative Litigation Law, 2010." HUFS Law Review 41, no. 1 (February 2017): 149–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.17257/hufslr.2017.41.1.149.
Full text
42
Hanbin, Wang. "Explanation of the (Draft) Administrative Litigation Law of the PRC." Chinese Law & Government 24, no. 3 (October 1991): 35–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/clg0009-4609240335.
Full text
43
Angling, Angling, and Evita Isretno Israhadi. "Dilemma of Legal Protection for TNI Soldiers Due to the Legal Vacuum in Military Administrative Procedure Regarding Litigation Mechanisms and Non-Litigation Options." Devotion : Journal of Research and Community Service 5, no. 12 (December 20, 2024): 1470–78. https://doi.org/10.59188/devotion.v5i12.20693.
Full textAbstract:
This research addresses the legal vacuum experienced by TNI soldiers due to the absence of a Government Regulation governing military administrative procedural law, as mandated by Law Number 31 of 1997 on Military Justice. The study aims to analyze the impact of this legal uncertainty on soldiers' access to justice, particularly those who feel aggrieved by military administrative decisions, while highlighting real-life examples of the challenges they encounter in pursuing justice. A normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach is employed to examine relevant legal materials, cases, and theoretical frameworks. The results reveal significant legal uncertainty that creates barriers for soldiers to challenge administrative decisions effectively, leading to a lack of clarity in resolving disputes and protecting their rights. The findings underscore the urgent need for policy interventions, including issuing clear and comprehensive regulations on military administrative procedural law and establishing a specialized institution dedicated to handling such disputes. In conclusion, this research emphasizes the importance of addressing the legal vacuum to strengthen the legal system, ensure fairness, and safeguard the rights of TNI soldiers in Indonesia.
44
Yurevych, Yurii. "FORMATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN THE POLISH LANDS IN 1795-1918." Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series Law 74, no. 74 (June 30, 2022): 110–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/vla.2022.74.110.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the historical processes of formation of administrative justice in the Polish lands in 1795–1918. Foreign origins and influences on the Polish system of administrative justice are researched. The formation of mechanisms for resolving public law litigation in the Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815) as well as the Kingdom of Poland (1815–1867) is characterized. The organization and activity of the State Council, prefectural councils and voivodship councils as authorities of administrative justice are analyzed. There were no separate administrative courts in the Duchy of Warsaw, and the function of resolving disputes between citizens and public administration was entrusted to the governing authorities. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland declared the independence of judges and the inadmissibility of the influence of the executive branch, however this guarantee did not apply to public law litigation resolved by mixed (administrative-judicial) bodies. The peculiarities of the Austrian model of administrative justice, which had been in force in Poland since 1876, are clarified. Its content was expressed in the functioning of a single instance – the Administrative tribunal in Vienna. The Administrative tribunal consisted of the first and second heads (presidents), chairmen of the senates and advisers, appointed by the emperor at the request of the government. Despite the lack of other instances, the Administrative tribunal was a court of cassation and therefore did not consider the facts of public law litigation. The purpose of the Administrative tribunal, on which its competence was based, was to resolve cases over the violations of individual rights by a decision of an executive authority or local self-government. The Prussian model of administrative justice, which operated on Polish lands as a part of the German Empire, is highlighted. The above model was three-tiered and three-instance. All three levels had not cassation but audit competence, i.e. they could carry out a full trial of the case between the administration and the citizen. The first level in this system was county and city departments. The second level was the regional administrative courts, but since 1883 – the regional departments. The third level was the professional authority of administrative justice – the Supreme Administrative tribunal in Berlin. The tribunal consisted of its head (president), the chairman of the senate and judges, at least half of whom had to have judicial qualifications, and the rest came from the administrative apparatus. It is found that the states with corresponding democratic tendencies were characterized by a relatively higher quality of development of administrative justice. Instead, the reactionary Russian Empire did not have such a legal institution at all. The influences of French, German and Austrian law became decisive in establishing the Polish tradition of administrative proceedings in the period under study. The diverse experience of the Polish people in 1795-1918 allowed him to further generalize it and develop his own system of administrative justice in revived Poland.
45
Vicol, Alexandra Madalina. "Considerations regarding the object of the judicial action in order to resolve disputes arising from execution of administrative contracts." Supremacy of Law, no. 2 (June 2023): 120–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.52388/2345-1971.2022.e2.11.
Full textAbstract:
Disputes arising from the execution of administrative contracts constitute a continuous challenge to the social actors involved. The Republic of Moldova could take advantage of Romanian legislation if it started from the assumption that the theories and principles that govern administrative contracts in Romania are valid for it. In the case of Romania, the reconsideration of art. 8 para. (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 554/2004 which requires a legislative intervention in order to cancel the negative consequences for the private entrepreneur, part of an administrative contract, as a result of the procedural defect of not invoking, ex officio, by the court, at the first term, of functional material competence. After such an approach, the legislature of the Republic of Moldova could also be inspired, and could improve and harmonize the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law no. 793 of 10.02.2000 and the Administrative Code no. 116/2018. Anyway, in The Republic of Moldova, by virtue of its status as a candidate country for the EU, many legislative harmonizations will take place, and Romania’s experience would help.
46
Apel, Brian. "An Administrative Meter Maid: Using Inter Partes Review and Post-Grant Review to Curb Exclusivity Parking via the "Failure to Market" Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act." Michigan Law Review, no. 114 (2015): 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.36644/mlr.114.1.administrative.
Full textAbstract:
Congress created the unique Hatch-Waxman framework in 1984 to increase the availability of low-cost generic drugs while preserving patent incentives for new drug development. The Hatch-Waxman Act rewards generic drug companies that successfully challenge a pharmaceutical patent: 180 days of market exclusivity before any other generic firm can enter the market. When a generic firm obtains this reward, sometimes drug developers agree to pay generic firms to delay entering the market. These pay-for-delay agreements give rise to exclusivity parking and run counter to congressional intent by delaying full generic drug competition. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act created several statutory forfeiture provisions that proved only marginally effective at curbing the practice of exclusivity parking. More recently, Congress created new quasi-judicial administrative proceedings that effectively replace certain kinds of district court patent litigation. This Note describes the complex statutory scheme that gave rise to exclusivity parking, explains why previous and current attempts to curtail exclusivity parking were and remain ineffective, and suggests amending the “failure to market” provision to include these new administrative proceedings as a way to help curb exclusivity parking.
47
Lyu, Shuping, Caroline Buts, and Marc Jegers. "China’s Fair Competition Review System: A Single Case Study." World Competition 45, Issue 1 (February 1, 2022): 123–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/woco2022005.
Full textAbstract:
The case study methodology has proved to be a useful empirical tool for competition policy evaluation. However, as far as China’s Fair Competition Review System (FCRS) is concerned, empirical studies are scarce. This article aims to partly fill this gap by thoroughly studying the first litigation case in light of three questions: (1) does China’s FCRS contribute to a competitive market?; (2) does it face challenges regarding implementation, including judicial proceedings?; and (3) how to tackle these challenges? We find that China’s FCRS promotes a competitive market to some extent, but diverse issues need to be tackled in the coming years. Some policymakers still lack understanding of the system. Public antitrust enforcement also faces understanding and capability problems to fully implement the FCRS. The review standards are not specific enough. Regarding judicial scrutiny of the FCRS, we note that also judges lack knowledge of the FCRS, especially in primary courts. Court jurisdictions for filing administrative monopoly litigation are not of high enough rank. In addition, the nature of the FCRS brings up doubts when entering into litigation as the case has to be connected with the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML). Consequently, we formulate several suggestions for improvement: First, strengthening competition advocacy and FCRS training for policymakers, antitrust enforcement officials, and judges. Second, establishing disciplinary and incentive mechanisms. Third, increasing enforcement capacity. Fourth, specifying industry-specific review standards. In terms of judicial scrutiny, in addition to the training for judges, we also propose to reform the administrative proceeding system, adding corresponding clauses connected to Chapter V of the AML and the FCRS into the Administrative Procedure Law. Abstract administrative actions should also have the possibility to initiate litigation in the near future, and administrative monopoly cases should be filed at least to an intermediate court or intellectual property court, rather than to a primary court. The establishment of a dedicated competition court could also add value. Last, we recommend upgrading the FCRS to proper law. China, Fair Competition Review System, Evaluation, Case study, Administrative monopoly
48
Jiménez, Luis Arroyo. "Infrastructure Planning in Spain – Public Participation and Legal Protection." Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 11, no. 3 (September 5, 2014): 232–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01103003.
Full textAbstract:
This article deals with infrastructure planning in Spanish law. It first describes the role of public participation in planning procedures and analyzes the main participatory instruments foreseen in both general and sectoral administrative law. The distance between a rather adequate administrative legislation on participatory instruments and an unsatisfactory administrative practice in terms of promoting citizen’s participation and seeking acceptance harms the quality of administrative decisions and increases litigation. The article then focuses on the regulation of legal remedies against those decisions and describes recent developments in both academic doctrine and case-law. The main problems related to the effectiveness of judicial protection in this area of law are finally explored.
49
Arias Osorio, Carolina, and Catalina Álvarez Londoño. "The expert opinion in the administrative contentious jurisdiction in accordance with law 2080 of 2021." Southern perspective / Perspectiva austral 2 (March 12, 2024): 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.56294/pa202422.
Full textAbstract:
One of the purposes of the Code of Administrative Procedure and Administrative Litigation was to enforce the protection of the rights and freedoms of the administered, which sought to have a codification less adjective and more substantial in which all aspects were regulated both in the Administration as in the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction; However, the non-regulated, continues to be processed, by express authorization of the CPACA, through the General Code of the Process, being a relevant issue to clarify how this coding is applied to the processing of resources in the administrative trial, which is will make the hand of jurisprudence and doctrine.It will be of manifest relevance to handle what has been stated by the Supreme Organ of the Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction between the years 2014 to 2016, in order to ratify through the jurisprudence the rules of application of the CGP in the processing of the resources.
50
Witte, Andreas. "The Interaction Between Administrative and Judicial Review at the European Level: Notes on the Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 in Joined Cases T-351/18 and T-584/18, Ukrselhosprom PCF LLC and Versobank AS v ECB." Review of European Administrative Law 15, no. 1 (April 8, 2022): 45–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.7590/187479822x16484711706007.
Full textAbstract:
In many fields of EU administration, it has become common for secondary law to establish a pre-judicial appeal procedure that allows applicants to contest decisions administratively before initiating court litigation. Unlike many national systems, however, Union law does not contain a general and positively defined concept of administrative review. This forces secondary law legislators to construct such an edifice through the available administrative law toolkit, most importantly, the decision under Article 288 TFEU as the main instrument. In a recent case that arose in the context of the ECB's banking supervision activities in the Single Supervisory Mechanism, this has caused problems for the General Court to arrive at a pragmatically reasonable outcome in a doctrinally sound manner. The present case note discusses this judgment in the context of prior precedents from which it partially deviates. It also undertakes some conjecture as to the possible consequences of the ruling for the future and administrative appeal procedures beyond the Banking Union.