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'.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

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

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

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Lithuania

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

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

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Austria

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
Stefan Storr
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Power ◽  
Fundamental Significance ◽  
General Article ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Court Of First Instance

This chapter discusses administrative procedure and judicial review in Austria. In Austria, there exists a principle of the 'exclusivity of legal sources'. Legal protection is only possible against certain administrative legal sources. In general, Article 130 B-VG pronounces judgments on complaints by the administrative courts against rulings by administrative authorities for unlawful acts; against the exercise of direct administrative power and compulsion to carry out unlawful acts; and on the grounds of breach of the duty to reach a decision by an administrative authority. In principle, the administrative court has to examine the case comprehensively; in general, there is no exclusion for specific administrative matters. It is of fundamental significance for the Austrian administrative judicial system that an administrative court of first instance generally decides on the merits of the case. Only in very exceptional cases does it set aside the contested act by the authority and refer the case back to it.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

scholarly journals Z problematyki zakazu reformationis in peius w postępowaniu sądowoadministracyjnym

2019 ◽  
pp. 123-157
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Ciesielska
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Diffi Cult ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Way

The principle of prohibition of reformatio in peius is established in Article 134 § 2 of the Law on Proceedings Before Administrative Courts. According to this provision the administrative court is not allowed to issue a decision to the detriment of the complainant. A judgment adverse to the complainant can be exceptionally issued but only if the court fi nds a violation of the law resulting in the annulment of the challenged act or action. This principle is a procedural institution which ensures that the complainant’s situation will not deteriorate due to the decision of the administrative court. There are many interpretative doubts concerning the prohibition of reformatio in peius in the doctrine and the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. This is because administrative courts very rarely issue a decision on the merits. Decisions of administrative courts are basically of cassation nature. When the administrative court allows a complaint, the contested act is generally eliminated from the system of law and the case is returned for re-examination by the public administrative authority. It is therefore very diffi cult to determine the content of the prohibition of reformatio in peius in administrative court proceedings and in practice the prohibition of a change for the worse is not a real guarantee of the protection of the interests of the complainant. In the author’s opinion, the way of approaching the mechanism of application of the prohibition of reformatio in peius by the administrative courts needs to be changed. And yet, a signifi cant improvement in the eff ectiveness of the protection against the worsening of the complainant’s legal situation will only be possible through the introduction of a new legal regulation restricting the jurisdiction of public administrative authority, which will reconsider the case after the cassation judgment issued by the administrative court.

scholarly journals Interpretive Rulemaking and the Alaska Hunters Doctrine: A Necessary Limitation on Agency Discretion

2004 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan DeMotte
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
National Park ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Fairness And Efficiency ◽  
Fundamental Law ◽  
Agency Administration ◽  
Agency Action

Administrative agencies govern a vast amount of our personal and economic lives. Whether buying groceries or visiting a national park, selling shares of stock or taking medication, individuals are impacted every day by federal agencies and the regulatory regimes they administer. Federal regulations govern many of the significant decisions made by corporations and businesses. Given the immense scope and impact of federal regulation, the public has an important interest in ensuring that agency administration is both fair and efficient. Central to achieving fairness and efficiency in agency administration is the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the fundamental law governing federal agencies. The APA establishes the basic procedural requirements for agency action, and provides for judicial review.

scholarly journals Sądowa kontrola decyzji organów podatkowych w sprawach ulg w spłacie zobowiązań podatkowych opartych na uznaniu administracyjnym

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 441
Author(s):  
Andrzej Niezgoda
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Tax Relief ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Courts

<p>The article is of a scientific-research nature. The author discusses the problem of limits of judicial review of discretionary decisions made by taxation authorities, which aim at applying relief in payments of tax liabilities under Polish regulations and case-law of administrative courts. It may be noted that despite the issue of administrative discretion being discussed in the academic literature, the question of limits of judicial review in the practice of administrative courts still raises doubts. It is therefore reasonable to undertake the analysis of the main views formulated in the literature and the case-law of administrative courts addressing this problem, from the point of view of the limits of judicial review of discretionary decisions. The thesis of the article is that the nature of discretionary decisions on relief in payment of tax liabilities, determined by the function of administrative discretion, and, at the same time, the criteria set out in the law for judicial review of public administration, limit the role of the administrative court in examining the compliance with procedural law of the tax proceedings preceding the issuance of such a decision and the respecting by tax authorities of the fundamental values of the system of law expressed in the Polish Constitution. This is because they define the limits of administrative discretion, within which the choice of one of the possible solutions remains beyond the judicial review of the public administration. For the law, as it stands (<em>de lege lata</em>) there are no grounds for administrative courts, provided that the tax authorities respect the basic values of the legal system expressed in the Polish Constitution, to formulate assessments as to the circumstances and reasons justifying the granting or refusal to grant a tax relief, or its scope. The concept of internal and external limits of administrative discretion may therefore be useful for administrative court rulings.</p>

11. Standing: litigation and the public interest

2021 ◽  
pp. 428-464
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act

This chapter examines standing—the entitlement to be heard by a court. No judicial process of any kind may proceed without it. In an ordinary claim, the claimant’s standing is based on his assertion of grounds for his claim to a remedy. In a claim for judicial review, the claimant does not need to assert a right to a remedy, but must have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter in dispute. The discussion covers campaign litigation, costs in campaign litigation, standing in an ordinary claim for a declaration, standing in Human Rights Act proceedings, standing for public authorities, and standing to intervene.

14. Administrative justice: tribunals, ombudsmen, and public inquiries

Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 559-619
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Inquiry ◽  
Good Government ◽  
Administrative Justice ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter discusses the concept of administrative justice. The complexity and scale of modern government means that it is inevitable that sometimes things will go wrong. Public bodies make hundreds of thousands of decisions each year. Sometimes, the pressures of making thousands of decisions on finite resources mean that public bodies may not treat members of the public appropriately and not fulfil the aims of good government. When things go wrong, some will wish to challenge decisions made by the public authorities. Although such disputes are usually resolved by the courts applying the principles of judicial review, alternatives such as statutory tribunals, the ombudsman, and public inquiry provide other ways to challenge decisions made by public bodies. These three procedures form the basis of the system of administrative justice.

19. Ombudsmen

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Jason Varuhas
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The Public ◽  
System P ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter examines the role of the ombudsmen in the administrative justice system. It first traces the origins of the ‘public sector ombudsmen’, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in the UK. It then considers the need for and the functions of the ombudsmen, along with the place of the ombudsmen in a changing administrative landscape. It also discusses bodies and matters subject to investigation by the Ombudsman based on the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, including ‘maladministration’, and the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate. Finally, the chapter reviews the conduct and consequences of the Ombudsman's investigations, paying attention to judicial review of the ombudsmen's conclusions, and institutional matters pertaining to the ombudsman system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document