scholarly journals Impact of the Rule of Law as a Fundamental Public Governance Principle on Administrative Law Interpretation in the Czech Republic

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
Jana Janderová
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
Public Governance ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Courts

The rule of law is a fundamental principle and the cornerstone of Western democracies and their public governance. Its underlying value is the idea of constraint of governmental power. The rule of law principle acts as an interpretative concept in most contexts of the exercise of public powers in the EU and its Member States, with the courts exercising supervision over the activities of administrative bodies. However, the teleological argumentation through fundamental principles is not inherent to all Central and Eastern European judicial and administrative bodies, given the long tradition of formalistic approach in most of them. The article analyses whether the approach has changed during the past thirty years and to which level the principle of the rule of law is used for interpretation of administrative law provisions by courts in the Czech Republic. Since the case law of the Czech Constitutional Court and the Czech Supreme Administrative Court is based on the arguments of legality and proportionality as the key elements of the rule of law, their cases were analysed using a comparative method. The article identifies a general tendency in legally difficult cases to move from purely linguistic interpretation to interpretation through values, including the rule of law. Most of the analysed cases reveal that the formalistic interpretation was strongly criticised by both the Constitutional and the Supreme Administrative courts. However, slight differences in their perception of the principles of legality and proportionality were discerned, namely in the debate on the intensity of control exercised by administrative courts over factual and discretionary decisions by administrative authorities. Nevertheless, these differences produce beneficial effects, as both principles continue being developed thanks to the exchange of opinions between the courts. Further research could be conducted for similar countries in the region.

A PROPÓSITO DEL ORIGEN Y EVOLUCIÓN DEL RÉGIME ADMINISTRATIF

2010 ◽  
pp. 767-785
Author(s):  
JESÚS LEGUINA VILLA
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Statutory Power ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Ancien Régime ◽  
Principle Of Legality

El Derecho Administrativo es un producto propio y específico del constitucionalismo nacido tras la ruptura revolucionaria con el Antiguo Régimen, que resultará profundamente condicionado por las circunstancias sociopolíticas del país, Francia, donde nació. El Régimen Administrativo del Estado de Derecho se conforma a partir del principio de legalidad, de la potestad reglamentaria, de las libertades públicas y los derechos públicos subjetivos, de la responsabilidad de la Administración y del control a través de la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. Administrazio Zuzenbidea konstituzionalismoaren berezko produktua espezifikoa da, Frantziako Iraultzak Erregimen Zaharrarekin apurtu ostean sortua eta herrialde horren egoera soziopolitikoak sakon baldintzatua. Zuzenbide Estatuaren Administrazio Araubideak osatzeko hauek guztiak hartzen dira abiapuntu: legezkotasun-printzipioa, arauzko ahala, askatasun publikoak eta eskubide publiko subjektiboak, Administrazioaren erantzukizuna eta administrazio-auziarekiko jurisdikzioaren bidez egiten den kontrola. Administrative Law is a product typical and specific of the constitutionalism born after the revolutionary break-off with the Ancien Regime, which was deeply conditioned by the sociopolitical circumstances of the State, France, where it was born. The Administrative Regime of the Rule of Law was made up from the point of view of the principle of legality, the statutory power, public freedoms and subjective public rights, the liability by the Administration and the review by means of the contentious administrative courts.

scholarly journals Judicial Review of Municipal Legislation on Hazard Games in the Czech Republic

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Michael Kohajda ◽  
Jiri Moravec
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Ministry Of Finance ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Legislative Activities

The aim of the article is to discover fundamental regulating legislative activities of municipalities in the field of hazard games. For several recent years there have been a lot of problematic cases relating to authorisations to carry on hazard games in the Czech towns and villages that have had to be decided by the Ministry of Finance and later by administrative courts and the Constitutional Court. Some of the decisions can be considered fundamental and very relevant for fundamental principles of municipal legislation making. The authors focus on elected court decisions with the aim to evaluate the practise of municipalities in the field.

scholarly journals The lawmaking linguistic and expert support: European and Ukrainian examples

2021 ◽  
pp. e021113
Author(s):  
Valentyna Lukianets-Shakhova ◽  
Yuliia Buhaiko ◽  
Iryna Tsvigun ◽  
Kateryna Sokh ◽  
Myroslava Hnatyuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Linguistic Support ◽  
Language Support ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Expert Support

The article aims to study the role and importance of an expert and linguistic support of law drafting as a mean of improving the national legislation of Ukraine. The work is based on the application of descriptive, systematic, logical-legal, hermeneutic, statistical, comparative-legal methods of legal research and the method of alternatives. The research materials include normative legal acts regulating the activity of expert and linguistic support of lawmaking in Ukraine, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Poland. The circle of the main executors of expert and language support of lawmaking in the specified countries, for the definition of their efficiency according to the Rule of Law Index as an indicator of the quality of the legislation, is allocated. The nature of the influence of expert and linguistic support of lawmaking of the analyzed states and their Rule of Law Indices is established.

Legisprudence Limitations on Constitutional Amendments? Reflections on The Czech Constitutional Court’s Declaration of Unconstitutional Constitutional Act

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaniv Roznai
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Essential Requirement ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Normative Status

AbstractCan a constitutional norm be unconstitutional? This idea seems, at first sight as a self-contradiction. Unconstitutionality is commonly referred to those ordinary laws, inferior to the constitution, which violate it. Constitutional norms, in contrast, carry an equal normative status as the constitution itself and other constitutional provisions. The question of unconstitutional constitutional norms recently arose in the Czech Republic. On 10 September 2009, the Czech Constitutional Court declared Constitutional Act no 195/2009 Coll, on Shortening the Fifth Term of Office of the Chamber of Deputies to be unconstitutional. The Czech Constitutional Court held that the constitutional act was an individual, specific decision and retroactive, thus violating the unamendability provision (Art 9(2)) in the Constitution, which prohibits amendments to the essential requirement for a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This article analyses the Czech Constitutional Court’s decision in a broader comparative and theoretical perspective and focuses, mainly, on four issues: first, the Czech Constitutional Court’s authority to substantively review constitutional norms; second, the appropriate standard of review when exercising judicial review of constitutional norms; third, the ‘individual, specific’ character of the constitutional act; and fourth, its alleged retroactive application. The article claims that while the Czech Constitutional Court was generally correct in claiming an authority to substantively review even constitutional norms, this was not the appropriate case in which to annul a constitutional act.

Paranoids may be persecuted: post-totalitarian retroactive justice

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aviezer Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Human Resources ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Secret Police ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Limited Application

Retroactive justice against perpetrators in post-totalitarian, as distinct of post-authoritarian, democracies is constrained by the absence of human resources for the rule of law and the weakness of civil society. The limited application of lustration and other sanctions in postcommunist countries is understood in the context of politics of transition, political actors, motivations, constraints and beliefs. With special attention to the Czech Republic, the ineffectiveness of lustration is exemplified by the damage inflicted on post-communist societies by the nomenklatura and the former secret police.

scholarly journals Zákaz zneužitia veřejných subjektívnych prav a slobôd

AUC IURIDICA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 77-91
Author(s):  
Soňa Košičiarová
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Subjective Rights

The aim of the article is to point out the growing phenomenon of the abuse of public subjective rights and freedoms by private persons in public administration. It analyzes the legal nature of the abuse of rights and freedoms, and the competence of public administration authorities. The author mentions some of the most well-known cases decided by the Constitutional Court and administrative courts in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

scholarly journals Selection of Judges for Administrative Courts

Teisė ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 90-100
Author(s):  
Ieva Deviatnikovaitė
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Deep Knowledge ◽  
Administrative Courts ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Legal Force

Administrative law, unlike civil or criminal law, is not a codified branch of law and it is characterized by a large number of sources of different legal force. Thus, a judge hearing administrative disputes must have particularly deep knowledge of administrative law. The article analyzes the experience of France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Lithuania in selecting candidates for judges to work with administrative cases.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document