Suchergebnisse

The article presents the institution of an administrative agreement from the perspec-tive of legal solutions in force in selected European countries. The increase in the number and diversity of tasks performed by the administration and the multitude of conducted proceedings encourage the search for alternative forms of settling a case in relation to an administrative decision. The administrative agreement is one of them. The analysis of foreign regulations confirms that the institution in question belongs to the modern procedural laws. The scope of regulation varies, as do the individual solutions concerning the admissibility and mode of concluding the contract, its subject matter, the mechanisms for removing defects, the grounds for contestability of the contract and its enforceability. It turns out that in individual European orders two patterns of regulation dominate: French and German, although they are subject to significant modifications. The performance of certain public tasks by private parties on the basis of an administrative agreement provides for certain guarantees not only for the parties to the agreement but also for the beneficiaries of those tasks. This particular type of contract allows adequate protection of the public interest. The prevalence of the administrative agreement in Europe prompts the author to formulate a conclusion on the need to include this institution in the home system. The attempt made in the 2017 reform of the Administrative Procedure Code to include in it an administrative agreement was unsuccessful. The provisions on an administrative agreement that were then drafted were intended to give a deeper meaning to mediation, a new institution in administrative proceedings, which is currently not popular. Mediation was to precede the conclusion of an administrative agreement. However, there are no significant obstacles to returning to work on the regulation of this institution, which is so widely used in other European countries, and which is clearly lacking in its home Code ; The article presents the institution of an administrative agreement from the perspec-tive of legal solutions in force in selected European countries. The increase in the number and diversity of tasks performed by the administration and the multitude of conducted proceedings encourage the search for alternative forms of settling a case in relation to an administrative decision. The administrative agreement is one of them. The analysis of foreign regulations confirms that the institution in question belongs to the modern procedural laws. The scope of regulation varies, as do the individual solutions concerning the admissibility and mode of concluding the contract, its subject matter, the mechanisms for removing defects, the grounds for contestability of the contract and its enforceability. It turns out that in individual European orders two patterns of regulation dominate: French and German, although they are subject to significant modifications. The performance of certain public tasks by private parties on the basis of an administrative agreement provides for certain guarantees not only for the parties to the agreement but also for the beneficiaries of those tasks. This particular type of contract allows adequate protection of the public interest. The prevalence of the administrative agreement in Europe prompts the author to formulate a conclusion on the need to include this institution in the home system. The attempt made in the 2017 reform of the Administrative Procedure Code to include in it an administrative agreement was unsuccessful. The provisions on an administrative agreement that were then drafted were intended to give a deeper meaning to mediation, a new institution in administrative proceedings, which is currently not popular. Mediation was to precede the conclusion of an administrative agreement. However, there are no significant obstacles to returning to work on the regulation of this institution, which is so widely used in other European countries, and which is clearly lacking in its home Code

The article presents the institution of an administrative agreement from the perspec­tive of legal solutions in force in selected European countries. The increase in the number and diversity of tasks performed by the administration and the multitude of conducted proceedings encourage the search for alternative forms of settling a case in relation to an administrative decision. The administrative agreement is one of them. The analysis of foreign regulations confirms that the institution in question belongs to the modern procedural laws. The scope of regulation varies, as do the individual solutions concerning the admissibility and mode of concluding the contract, its subject matter, the mechanisms for removing defects, the grounds for contestability of the contract and its enforceability. It turns out that in individual European orders two patterns of regulation dominate: French and German, although they are subject to significant modifications. The performance of certain public tasks by private parties on the basis of an administrative agreement provides for certain guarantees not only for the parties to the agreement but also for the beneficiaries of those tasks. This particular type of contract allows adequate protection of the public interest. The prevalence of the administrative agreement in Europe prompts the author to formulate a conclusion on the need to include this institution in the home system. The attempt made in the 2017 reform of the Administrative Procedure Code to include in it an administrative agreement was unsuccessful. The provisions on an administrative agreement that were then drafted were intended to give a deeper meaning to mediation, a new institution in administrative proceedings, which is currently not popular. Mediation was to precede the conclusion of an administrative agreement. However, there are no significant obstacles to returning to work on the regulation of this institution, which is so widely used in other European countries, and which is clearly lacking in its home Code. ; 53 ; 73 ; 2

On 1 June 2017, a major amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure came into force. The article deals with mediation incorporated into the Code as a new institution of administrative proceedings. The authors presented the advantages and disadvantages of mediation in public matters and discussed the theoretical foundations of this construction. They analysed the effectiveness of the mediation conducted in the proceedings before the administrative courts, pointing that en­trusting mediation to professional mediators (by amending the Act of 7 April 2017) was justified. The new regulation provides for mediation that is voluntary, secret, and conducted by an impartial mediator. The amending act does not specify the preferred mediation strategies, leaving this issue to the mediators, but the analysis of the content of the new provisions leads to the conclusion that the evaluative type of mediation is the leading one. The amended provision of Article 13 § 1 of the Code allows mediation in any matter, provided its the nature is sufficiently suitable. In the Authors' opinion, mediation should be allowed especially in matters that need to be resolved basing on the administrative discretion and in matters whose settlement requires the interpretation of terms that are not specified. In the authors opinion, mediation may be an effective instrument for eliminating administrative disputes but requires proper preparation of the clerks involved.

On 1 June 2017, a major amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure came into force. The article deals with mediation incorporated into the Code as a new institution of administrative proceedings. The authors presented the advantages and disadvantages of mediation in public matters and discussed the theoretical foundations of this construction. They analysed the effectiveness of the mediation conducted in the proceedings before the administrative courts, pointing that entrusting mediation to professional mediators (by amending the Act of 7 April 2017) was justified. The new regulation provides for mediation that is voluntary, secret, and conducted by an impartial mediator. The amending act does not specify the preferred mediation strategies, leaving this issue to the mediators, but the analysis of the content of the new provisions leads to the conclusion that the evaluative type of mediation is the leading one. The amended provision of Article 13 § 1 of the Code allows mediation in any matter, provided its the nature is sufficiently suitable. In the Authors' opinion, mediation should be allowed especially in matters that need to be resolved basing on the administrative discretion and in matters whose settlement requires the interpretation of terms that are not specified. In the authors opinion, mediation may be an effective instrument for eliminating administrative disputes but requires proper preparation of the clerks involved. ; On 1 June 2017, a major amendment to the Code of Administrative Procedure came into force. The article deals with mediation incorporated into the Code as a new institution of administrative proceedings. The authors presented the advantages and disadvantages of mediation in public matters and discussed the theoretical foundations of this construction. They analysed the effectiveness of the mediation conducted in the proceedings before the administrative courts, pointing that entrusting mediation to professional mediators (by amending the Act of 7 April 2017) was justified. The new regulation provides for mediation that is voluntary, secret, and conducted by an impartial mediator. The amending act does not specify the preferred mediation strategies, leaving this issue to the mediators, but the analysis of the content of the new provisions leads to the conclusion that the evaluative type of mediation is the leading one. The amended provision of Article 13 § 1 of the Code allows mediation in any matter, provided its the nature is sufficiently suitable. In the Authors' opinion, mediation should be allowed especially in matters that need to be resolved basing on the administrative discretion and in matters whose settlement requires the interpretation of terms that are not specified. In the authors opinion, mediation may be an effective instrument for eliminating administrative disputes but requires proper preparation of the clerks involved.

Appealing to public authorities about any legal conflict leads to an overload of courts and administrative bodies. An alternative to improving access to justice and reducing the burden on the courts is to use other alternative means of resolving legal disputes, such as mediation. The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the application of the mediation procedure in administrative proceedings. Highlights the signs of administrative and legal dispute, as well as the peculiarities of the mediation procedure. The purpose of the study is to study domestic and foreign experience in the use of mediation in administrative proceedings, as well as to formulate proposals and recommendations for improving the current legislation in this area, based on the analysis of scientific papers, current legislation and law enforcement practice. The methodological basis of the study is a set of general scientific, philosophical, special methods of scientific knowledge, the use of which allowed to ensure the achievement of the stated goals and objectives of the study and comprehensive coverage of the research problem.

The article analyzes the range of participants in administrative proceedings, depending on which of the two groups of proceedings they belong to: conflict or non-conflict. It is noted that for the terminological designation of participants in non-conflict proceedings, special attention should be paid to the procedural position they perform in administrative proceedings. The article defines two groups of participants in non-conflict proceedings, the first of which consists of state executive bodies and local governments and their officials who consider and resolve administrative cases. The second group of participants in non-conflict proceedings consists of individuals and legal entities, as well as, under certain conditions, associations of citizens without the status of a legal entity, who protect personal rights and legitimate interests in the administrative process. The laws establishing the procedure for conducting administrative proceedings do not contain standard procedural terms for designating individuals and legal entities as participants in administrative proceedings in Ukraine. It is proposed to analyze the subjects of conflict proceedings depending on the type of proceedings in which they participate, that is, focusing on such types of administrative proceedings as: administrative-tort proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, proceedings on complaints of citizens, administrative proceedings by way of administrative proceedings. The authors concluded that system of subjects of conflict and non-conflict proceedings is complex and branched, what affects the flexibility of the mechanism of protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens as a whole today. It is considered to reform the system of conflict proceedings and to minimize of authorized bodies with broad competence. Also, the need for a unified approach to the terminological definition of participants in non-conflict proceedings is a significant problem in law enforcement that needs to be addressed urgently. ; В статье проанализирован круг участников административных производств в зависимости от того к какой из двух групп производств они относятся: конфликтные или неконфликтные. Отмечено, что для терминологического обозначения участников неконфликтных производств особое внимание надо уделить процессуальной позиции, которую они выполняют в административном производстве. В статье определены две группы участников неконфликтных производств первую из которых составляют органы государственной исполнительной власти, местного самоуправления и их должностные лица, которые рассматривают и решают административные дела. Вторую группу участников неконфликтного производства составляют физические и юридические лица, а так- же при некоторых условиях объединения граждан без статуса юридического лица, защи- щающие в административном процессе личные права и законные интересы. В Украине законы, устанавливающие порядок осуществления административного производства, не содержат стандартных процессуальных терминов для обозначения физических и юридических лиц как участников административного производства. Предложено ана- лизировать субъекты конфликтных производств в зависимости от вида производства, в котором они участвуют, то есть ориентируясь на следующие виды административных производств: административно-деликтные производства, дисциплинарные производства, производства по жалобам граждан, производства административных дел в порядке административного судопроизводства. Авторы пришли к выводу, что сегодняшняя система субъектов конфликтных и неконфликтных производств является сложной и разветвленной, что влияет на гибкость механизма защиты прав и законных интересов граждан в целом. Представляется целесообразным провести реформирование системы конфликтных производств и предусмотреть минимум уполномоченных органов с широкой компетенцией. Также, потребность унифицированного подхода к терминологическому определению участников неконфликтных производств является значительной проблемой в правоприменении, которая требует неотложного решения. ; У статті проаналізовано коло учасників адміністративних проваджень в залежності від того до якої з двох груп проваджень вони відносяться: конфліктні або неконфліктні. Зазначено, що для термінологічного позначення учасників неконфліктних проваджень особливу увагу треба приділити процесуальній позиції, яку вони виконують в адміністративному провадженні. В статті визначено дві групи учасників неконфліктних проваджень першу з яких становлять органи державної виконавчої влади і місцевого само- врядування та їх посадові особи, які розглядають і вирішують адміністративні справи. Другу групу учасників неконфліктного провадження складають фізичні та юридичні особи, а також за деяких умов об'єднання громадян без статусу юридичної особи, які захищають в адміністративному процесі особисті права та законні інтереси. В Україні закони, що встановлюють порядок здійснення адміністративного провадження, не містять стандартних процесуальних термінів для позначення фізичних та юридичних осіб як учасників адміністративного провадження. Запропоновано аналізувати суб'єктів конфліктних проваджень залежно від виду провадження, в якому вони беруть участь, тобто орієнтуючись на такі види адміністративних проваджень, як: адміністративно-деліктне провадження, дисциплінарне провадження, провадження за скаргами громадян, провадження адміністративних справ у порядку адміністративного судочинства. Автори дійшли висновку, що сьогоднішня система суб'єктів конфліктних і неконфліктних проваджень є складною та розгалуженою, що впливає на гнучкість механізму захисту прав і законних інтересів громадян у цілому. Вбачається доцільним провести реформування системи конфліктних проваджень та передбачити мінімум уповноважених органів із широкою компетенцією. Також, потреба уніфікованого підходу до термінологічного визначення учасників неконфліктних проваджень є значною проблемою у правозастосуванні яка потребує нагального вирішення.

The article analyzes the range of participants in administrative proceedings, depending on which of the two groups of proceedings they belong to: conflict or non-conflict. It is noted that for the terminological designation of participants in non-conflict proceedings, special attention should be paid to the procedural position they perform in administrative proceedings. The article defines two groups of participants in non-conflict proceedings, the first of which consists of state executive bodies and local governments and their officials who consider and resolve administrative cases. The second group of participants in non-conflict proceedings consists of individuals and legal entities, as well as, under certain conditions, associations of citizens without the status of a legal entity, who protect personal rights and legitimate interests in the administrative process. The laws establishing the procedure for conducting administrative proceedings do not contain standard procedural terms for designating individuals and legal entities as participants in administrative proceedings in Ukraine. It is proposed to analyze the subjects of conflict proceedings depending on the type of proceedings in which they participate, that is, focusing on such types of administrative proceedings as: administrative-tort proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, proceedings on complaints of citizens, administrative proceedings by way of administrative proceedings. The authors concluded that system of subjects of conflict and non-conflict proceedings is complex and branched, what affects the flexibility of the mechanism of protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens as a whole today. It is considered to reform the system of conflict proceedings and to minimize of authorized bodies with broad competence. Also, the need for a unified approach to the terminological definition of participants in non-conflict proceedings is a significant problem in law enforcement that needs to be addressed urgently. ; В статье проанализирован круг участников административных производств в зависимости от того к какой из двух групп производств они относятся: конфликтные или неконфликтные. Отмечено, что для терминологического обозначения участников неконфликтных производств особое внимание надо уделить процессуальной позиции, которую они выполняют в административном производстве. В статье определены две группы участников неконфликтных производств первую из которых составляют органы государственной исполнительной власти, местного самоуправления и их должностные лица, которые рассматривают и решают административные дела. Вторую группу участников неконфликтного производства составляют физические и юридические лица, а так- же при некоторых условиях объединения граждан без статуса юридического лица, защи- щающие в административном процессе личные права и законные интересы. В Украине законы, устанавливающие порядок осуществления административного производства, не содержат стандартных процессуальных терминов для обозначения физических и юридических лиц как участников административного производства. Предложено ана- лизировать субъекты конфликтных производств в зависимости от вида производства, в котором они участвуют, то есть ориентируясь на следующие виды административных производств: административно-деликтные производства, дисциплинарные производства, производства по жалобам граждан, производства административных дел в порядке административного судопроизводства. Авторы пришли к выводу, что сегодняшняя система субъектов конфликтных и неконфликтных производств является сложной и разветвленной, что влияет на гибкость механизма защиты прав и законных интересов граждан в целом. Представляется целесообразным провести реформирование системы конфликтных производств и предусмотреть минимум уполномоченных органов с широкой компетенцией. Также, потребность унифицированного подхода к терминологическому определению участников неконфликтных производств является значительной проблемой в правоприменении, которая требует неотложного решения. ; У статті проаналізовано коло учасників адміністративних проваджень в залежності від того до якої з двох груп проваджень вони відносяться: конфліктні або неконфліктні. Зазначено, що для термінологічного позначення учасників неконфліктних проваджень особливу увагу треба приділити процесуальній позиції, яку вони виконують в адміністративному провадженні. В статті визначено дві групи учасників неконфліктних проваджень першу з яких становлять органи державної виконавчої влади і місцевого само- врядування та їх посадові особи, які розглядають і вирішують адміністративні справи. Другу групу учасників неконфліктного провадження складають фізичні та юридичні особи, а також за деяких умов об'єднання громадян без статусу юридичної особи, які захищають в адміністративному процесі особисті права та законні інтереси. В Україні закони, що встановлюють порядок здійснення адміністративного провадження, не містять стандартних процесуальних термінів для позначення фізичних та юридичних осіб як учасників адміністративного провадження. Запропоновано аналізувати суб'єктів конфліктних проваджень залежно від виду провадження, в якому вони беруть участь, тобто орієнтуючись на такі види адміністративних проваджень, як: адміністративно-деліктне провадження, дисциплінарне провадження, провадження за скаргами громадян, провадження адміністративних справ у порядку адміністративного судочинства. Автори дійшли висновку, що сьогоднішня система суб'єктів конфліктних і неконфліктних проваджень є складною та розгалуженою, що впливає на гнучкість механізму захисту прав і законних інтересів громадян у цілому. Вбачається доцільним провести реформування системи конфліктних проваджень та передбачити мінімум уповноважених органів із широкою компетенцією. Також, потреба уніфікованого підходу до термінологічного визначення учасників неконфліктних проваджень є значною проблемою у правозастосуванні яка потребує нагального вирішення.

The aim of the study and the related presentation was to analyze the rules of the Hungarian and Polish administrative procedures in relation to the client status of (minority) NGOs, especially those belonging to the Polish nationality, in order to draw conclusions and make recommendations in the administrative proceedings to develop and promote the participation of non-governmental organizations. The presence of these organizations, especially in cases where there is a conflict of interest and / or the presence of a large number of clients, can make a major contribution to increasing the transparency of the regulatory process, achieving the actual objectives of the regulatory process and exercising adequate social control. A comparison of the experiences of Hungary and Poland is made possible by the accession to the supranational legal order of the European Union, which started at a similar time, and by the harmonization processes and similar legal and social conditions. The research related to the lecture was supported by the Wacław Felczak Foundation, with a scholarship called "Jagello".

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.

Administrative adjudication has become an essential aspect of the American system of government as the need for dispute resolution outside the courtroom increases. To foster alternative dispute resolution, the authorization of nonlawyers to appear as representatives in administrative proceedings presents a viable response to increasing litigation costs and a burdened court system. Accordingly, the federal administrative system, through broad enabling statutes, allows individual agencies to prescribe the proper scope of nonlawyer representation of clients during agency proceedings.1 The individual states, however,have not adopted such a uniform approach. The inability of the individual states to establish an adequate regulatory system largely can be traced to separation of powers concerns regarding the proper regulatory body to govern representation in quasi-judicial proceedings before state administrative agencies. The failure of states to prescribe guidelines for nonlawyer representation presents significant due process concerns and may result in inconsistent ad hoc determinations. To prevent potential unauthorized practice of law violations, the individual states, in accordance with each particular state's regulatory scheme, should clarify the proper scope of nonlawyer representation before the state administrative system.

Mediation is one of the most popular dispute resolution methods. It is used in all areas of law, while it did not appear in administrative proceedings until 2017. The purpose of this study is to present the issues related to mediation in administrative proceedings, taking into account the influence of the party in shaping the decision of the public administration body. Mediation serves to implement the principle of amicable settlement of cases, thanks to which a party in administrative proceedings may directly influence a public administration body.

В настоящее время вопрос об одном из основных институтов судопроизводства – административном – стоит весьма остро. Это объясняется множеством различных объективных и субъективных причин, но, в первую очередь, тем, что значительно расширились возможности судебного контроля над действиями публичной администрации и ее должностных лиц. Они не имеют каких-либо ограничений, поэтому практически любой вопрос, находящийся в ведении органов публичной администрации, может быть передан на рассмотрение соответствующего суда в соответствии с установленными законодательством правилами подведомственности и подсудности. Объективное существования института административной юстиции, необходимость исследования его составных положений и потребность дальнейшего законодательного регулирования явились основной целью настоящей работы, чья научная новизна, таким образом, заключается в раскрытии сущности функции судебного контроля в рамках уже вступившего в законную силу Кодекса административного судопроизводства РФ, которая заключается в проверке законности и обоснованности действий органов, должностных лиц, наделенных властными полномочиями, в ходе рассмотрения судами дел, отнесенных к компетенции последних. В статье выявляются особенности правового регулирования административного судопроизводства. Автор исследует проблемные аспекты административного судопроизводства, к которым можно отнести следующее: универсальный перечень категорий административных дел, определение подведомственности административных дел, отсутствие законодательного определения понятия «административное судопроизводство» и др. ; Nowadays the question about one of the basic institutes of justice – administrative – is very acute. This is due to various objective and subjective reasons, but primarily for those that have greatly expanded the possibilities of judicial control over the actions of the public administration and its officials. They do not have any restrictions, so almost any issue under the jurisdiction of the public administration organs may be transferred to the appropriate court in accordance with the established law rules of jurisdiction and cognizance. Objective existence of the Institute of administrative justice, the need to study its constituent provisions, and the need for further legislative regulation were the main objectives of the present work. So the scientific novelty of the work lies in the discovery of the essence of judicial control in the framework of an enforceable code of administrative procedure of the Russian Federation, which is to verify the legality and validity of actions of institutions, authority officials, in the course of consideration by courts of causes related to the competence of the latter. The article reveals the peculiarities of legal regulation of administrative procedure. The author explores the problematic aspects of administrative proceedings, which include a universal list of categories of administrative cases, determination of jurisdiction of administrative cases and the lack of a legal definition of «administrative court proceedings».

Since there is a problem of forming a system of modern doctrinal knowledge on protection in administrative proceedings by individuals of their rights violated in public relations, the topic under research becomes relevant. The justice in national administrative cases requires qualitative improvement taking into account European experience. The purpose of the research is to form a uniform judicial enforcement in the field of public relations, establish the rule of law, and provide fair justice. The methodological basis of this study is a set of general scientific (dialectical, analysis, and synthesis), as well as special legal (historical, comparative law, consideration and interpretation of legal norms, formal-logical) methods of scientific knowledge. The practical significance of the obtained results is that the formulated theoretical provisions, proposals and recommendations can be used: in research to conduct further research on the problems of administrative proceedings in Ukraine, ways and means of effective protection of subjective rights of individuals; in law-making for further improvement in accordance with European principles of national legislation; in the law enforcement practice of judges of administrative courts of Ukraine for consideration and resolution of public law disputes, in the protection of their rights in administrative judicial specialization by citizens and legal entities.

The article analyzed the positive experience of the European Union, which formed a regulatory array of acts on alternative dispute resolution. The purpose of the study is to implement the theoretical and legal characteristics of the procedural features of the institute of alternative resolution of public law disputes in the administrative proceedings of the European Union, as well as to provide proposals for prospects for its improvement. The methodological basis of the study is a set of general scientific, philosophical, special methods of scientific knowledge, the use of which allowed to ensure the achievement of the stated goals and objectives of the study and comprehensive coverage of the research problem.