Suchergebnisse

Interim measures are procedural means that allow persons or States to have their rights preserved when a case is pending. Application of these measures especially in environmental cases is very important. In many of these cases (e.g. cases dealing with territorial planning, IPPC permits, environmental impact assessment, etc.) the claims deal with the protection of environment or its components (water, air, soil, etc.) as well as with the protection of public interest. Legal regulation of application of interim measures provided by Lithuanian Law on Administrative Proceedings is not optimal. That is why the first part of the article is dedicated to the analysis of the possibilities and problems of application of interim measures in the administrative proceedings in Lithuania, paying special attention to environmental cases. The second part of the article reflects the findings of a workshop of the Association of European Administrative Judges on "Interim relief in environmental matters" held in Vilnius on 22 September 2011. It briefly describes various national rules on interim relief procedures, especially in the German and the French legislation, with an assessment from the German point of view. This part of the article focuses on provisional legal protection where a permit is challenged by a third party whose rights are allegedly afflicted. In such a constellation the rights of the plaintiff compete with the rights of the operator. The article concludes that, when deciding on the necessity of interim measures, it is vital to ensure the balance of interests: both by ensuring effective access to justice and by protecting the respondent and the third party (in environmental cases - usually the operator) from the violation of their rights and the damage caused by the abuse of the right to request interim measures. In such cases short time limits for procedural steps both of the parties and the court are not advisable and a prima facie prognosis on the outcome in the main proceedings meets the interests of the parties. ; Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonės (arba laikinosios apsaugos priemonės) yra procedūrinės priemonės, leidžiančios užtikrinti tinkamą asmenų ar valstybių teisių bei interesų apsaugą, dar neišnagrinėjus bylos iš esmės. Šių priemonių taikymas ypač reikšmingas bylose, susijusiose su aplinkos apsauga, nes daugelyje tokių bylų (pavyzdžiui, bylose, susijusiose su teritorijų planavimu, taršos integruotos prevencijos ir kontrolės leidimais, planuojamos ūkinės veiklos poveikio aplinkai vertinimu ir t. t.) paliečiami aplinkos ar atskirų jos komponentų (oro, vandens, dirvožemio, augalijos ir pan.) apsaugos klausimai, taip pat dažnai ginami viešieji interesai. Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo teisinis reguliavimas, įtvirtintas šiuo metu galiojančioje Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo redakcijoje, nėra optimalus. Būtent dėl to pirmoji straipsnio dalis skiriama reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo Lietuvos administraciniame procese galimybių ir problemų analizei, didesnį dėmesį skiriant su aplinkos apsauga susijusioms byloms bei jų specifikai. Antroji straipsnio dalis skirta Europos administracinių teismų teisėjų asociacijos Aplinkos darbo grupės organizuoto teorinio-praktinios eminaro "Laikinosios apsaugos priemonės aplinkos apsaugos srityje" (įvykusio2011 m. rugsėjo 22 d.Vilniuje) rezultatams ir išvadoms atskleisti. Joje trumpai apžvelgiama nacionalinė įvairių valstybių praktika, taikant laikinąsias apsaugos priemones, daugiausia dėmesio skiriant Vokietijos ir Prancūzijos teisiniam reguliavimui. Straipsnyje atlikto tyrimo pagrindu galima daryti išvadą, kad, sprendžiant būtinumo taikyti laikinąsias apsaugos priemones klausimą, ypač svarbu yra užtikrinti teisingą interesų pusiausvyrą: tiek garantuojant efektyvų teisės kreiptis į teismus įgyvendinimą, tiek užtikrinant, kad nebus pažeistos atsakovo ir trečiųjų asmenų teisės, kad laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymas nesukels žalos, didesnės negu ta, kuri būtų, jei laikinosios apsaugos priemonės nebūtų taikomos, taip pat kad nebus piktnaudžiaujama teise reikalauti taikyti šias priemones. Šiuo aspektu reikėtų akcentuoti, kad teisiniame reguliavime neturėtų būti nustatyti trumpi terminai teismo procesinių veiksmų atlikimui, priimant sprendimą dėl laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymo. Be to, reikalinga koreguoti dabar galiojantį teisinį reguliavimą, kad teismui būtų įmanoma įvertinti preliminarius galimus pagrindinės bylos rezultatus bei nustatyti, ar nėra piktnaudžiaujama teise taikyti šias priemones.

Amending the Code of Administrative Procedure, the legislator decided to introduce the possibility of conducting mediation proceedings. A mediator may be a natural person who has full legal capacity and exercises full civil rights. The mediator's role is to ensure the conduct of the mediation process. They have the responsibility to stimulate the initiative of the parties by means of appropriate mediation techniques, as well as to create an appropriate climate of conversation, based on mutual trust and respect. The mediator uses procedural rights, which include: the right to read the case files and the right to remuneration and reimbursement of expenses related to mediation. The Code of Administrative Procedure also imposes procedural obligations on the mediator: it must maintain impartiality in the conduct of mediation and draw up a report on mediation. Participants in the mediation are also parties of the administrative proceedings and a public administration body. The task of the public administration body is to determine whether the arrangements made by the parties with the participation of the mediator fall within the scope of the generally applicable law.

The paper analyzes the normative regulation of the procedural administrative decision institute, which was introduced into the Serbian administrative process as a novelty by the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA) in 2016. The paper aims to addresses three research questions: to determine the legislator's goal in regulating this insitute, to identify in which situations such a decision has to be made, and to establish how effective that type of decision is. At the beginning of the paper, the author focuses on the concept of effectiveness, including different, mutually opposed, approaches to defining that notion. The author points out the conceptual misunderstanding between efficiency and effectiveness, and their unjustified equalization. The main goal of introducing the institute of procedural administrative decision is the aspiration for greater protection of parties' procedural rights. The analysis of the text of the General Administrative Procedure Act has yielded seventeen basic types of procedural administrative decisions: a decision on rejecting the party's request, a decision not to allow alteration of the party's request, a decision on suspending the procedure, a decision on termination of the procedure, a decision on imposing a fine, decision on request, a decision on execution, a decision on securing the execution, a decision on appointing a temporary representative, a decision on denying representation to a quack lawyer for unlicenced practice of law, a decision on proposal for restitution, a decision on bearing preliminary procedure costs, a decision on exemption from procedure costs, a decision on payment of costs resulting from the absence or unjustified denial of testimony, a decision on compensation for damage to the holder, a decision on the proposal for providing evidence, and a decision on ordering an interim measure. The author concludes that the institute of procedural administrative decision can negatively affect the effectiveness of administrative proceedings due to the possibility of its unnecessary extension.

The institution of administrative mediation is a legal instrument, i.e. a meas­ure aimed at achieving the objective of amicable settlement of a case. This na­ture of mediation is highlighted by the standards of the Code of Administrative Procedure. This study explores an impact of the Code-based mediation on the effectiveness of administrative proceedings. In this context, effectiveness signi­fies the accomplishment of goals that underlay the incorporation of mediation into the Code of Administrative Procedure as pertinent to the basic principles of administrative proceedings. Those goals include: the promptness of proceedings, the principle of citizens' trust in the administrative authority and the principle of amicable dispute resolution. The article elaborates upon the following four issues: grounds for the incorporation of mediation into the Code of Administrative Pro­cedure, the essence and principles of mediation, the application extent of media­tion, conclusions on how the way mediation is governed affects the effectiveness of administrative proceedings. ; Instytucja mediacji w sprawie administracyjnej jest instrumentem prawnym, czyli środkiem służącym osiągnięciu celu, jakim jest polubowne załatwienie sprawy. Taki charakter tejże instytucji podkreślają normy kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego. Niniejsze opracowanie ukazuje wpływ regulacji mediacji w Kodeksie postępowania administracyjnego na efektywność postępowania administracyjnego. Poprzez efektywność rozumiemy realizację motywów wprowadzenia mediacji do Kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego w związku z podstawowymi zasadami postępowania administracyjnego takimi jak: szybkość postępowania, zasada zaufania obywateli do organu i zasady polubownego rozwiązywania sporów. Artykuł omawia 4 zagadnienia: uzasadnienie wprowadzenia mediacji do kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego, istota i zasady mediacji, zakres zastosowania mediacji, wnioski dotyczące wpływu sposobu regulacji instytucji mediacji na efektywność postępowania administracyjnego.

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.

The economic assessment of damage to movable and immovable objects considered part of archaeological heritage is a matter of increasing interest, both at the legal level and in terms of government management. The primary reason for this interest is the urgent need to agree on a sound and reliable approach to economically quantifying not so much the cultural value of the damage caused as the civil liability for having caused it in those cases in which it was produced by a harmful human act. Assessment methods require a broad consensus to be considered reliable. The lack of consideration given to this matter has only made the absence of such a consensus more acute. This paper offers a mainly Spanish case-based analysis of the most common valuation methods for both movable and immovable archaeological objects. With regard to movable objects, it examines the problems involved in both the exclusive use of an object&rsquo ; s market price as its cultural value and the lack of justification for the chosen valuation system, concluding that current methods are insufficient. This insufficiency, also perceived by the authors of the expert reports used in the analyzed proceedings, has been dealt with arbitrarily. With regard to immovable object, it concludes that the systems currently used to assess the damage to sites are likewise insufficient, despite having been legally acknowledged in some cases. This paper will thus examine the methods used in environmental assessments&mdash ; whose parallels with archaeological heritage are clear&mdash ; and proposes that they be adapted for this purpose.

The subject matter of the remarks discussed in this paper will be the problem of changes that have been introduced on the basis of Polish administrative proceedings as a result of an amendment to the Code of Administrative Proceedings1 by virtue of the law passed on December 3rd 2010 that concerns changes to the law – Code of Administrative Proceedings and Statutes – Law on Administrative Courts Proceedings. This amendment was signed by the President of the Republic of Poland on December 23rd 2010 and came into force on April 11th 2011. It should be noted that this amendment has significantly changed a few basic rules concerning the CAD and has influenced the model of administrative proceedings in cases of e.g. the principle of distributing the burden of proof. The amendment of the CAD, discussed in this paper, should be treated as the most important amendment of this legal act, valid in the Polish law since 1960. In compliance with the legislature, three basic goals of the amendment should the noted.2 The first pertains to the will to improve the administrative proceedings by abolishing major restrictions and gaps present in the rules of law currently in force. The second goal pertains to the motivation of the parties taking part in the proceedings to be more active. The last point concerns the possibility of suing not only an inactive organ of public administration but also for excessive and unwarranted protraction of proceedings. Because of the limitations imposed on the length of this paper only the main areas of change will be discussed, such as the issues of: changes concerning the principle of objective truth, changes concerning the principle of the speed of the proceedings, changes concerning the commencement of administrative proceedings, changes concerning access to the documents related to the case, changes concerning the possibility of issuing cassations, and finally, changes concerning the possibilities of a resumption of the administrative proceedings.

Currently, the institute of typical and exemplary cases is represented by the norms of only one of the national procedural laws, namely, the norms of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine. This is completely justified because the probability of similar legal disputes between individuals and subjects of authoritative powers is extremely high. Subjects of authoritative powers apply the same rules of law to a wide range of persons. Such application may be based on misunderstanding of general mandatory rules resulting in violation of the rights of individuals or restriction of these rights implementation. Besides, in most cases, the legal disputes to be considered under the rules of administrative proceedings need to be decided as soon as possible. Referring to the institute of typical and exemplary cases makes it possible to ensure the necessary rapid decision-making: the decision at exemplary case gives reference points in considering typical cases. In other words, the judge in fact receives a "competent recommendation" according to which he is obliged to decide a case characterized by typical features. Taking this into account the authors consider that according to the national legislator, the institute of typical and exemplary cases is aimed, inter alia, at ensuring the unity of judicial practice. The paper presents the analysis of the provisions of procedural law, the study of corresponding court decisions. Taking this into consideration an attempt is made to identify to what extent the implementation of the institute of typical and exemplary cases has influenced the unification of Ukrainian courts judging the public-legal disputes that can be considered the most common.