Suchergebnisse

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

In numerous sources of administrative law of interwar Lithuania the major role was given to a monetary fine. Furthermore, legislative acts also provided for administrative sanctions that restricted special rights (e.g. rights allowing engaging in certain activities etc.). The right of administrative punishment was provided for different authorities, from ministers to ordinary policemen; however, the biggest jurisdictional powers were vested in the county governor. We may claim that the growth of jurisdictional powers of administrative authorities in interwar Lithuania was based exceptionally on feasibility arguments. While solving the problems of criminal justice resulting from work overload of courts and aiming to ensure public order in the state and lawfulness in general, administrative sanctions were regarded to be efficient and appropriate measures to achieve these aims. Administrative punishment compensated for the things that were impossible to implement by jurisdictional activities of courts.

In numerous sources of administrative law of interwar Lithuania the major role was given to a monetary fine. Furthermore, legislative acts also provided for administrative sanctions that restricted special rights (e.g. rights allowing engaging in certain activities etc.). The right of administrative punishment was provided for different authorities, from ministers to ordinary policemen; however, the biggest jurisdictional powers were vested in the county governor. We may claim that the growth of jurisdictional powers of administrative authorities in interwar Lithuania was based exceptionally on feasibility arguments. While solving the problems of criminal justice resulting from work overload of courts and aiming to ensure public order in the state and lawfulness in general, administrative sanctions were regarded to be efficient and appropriate measures to achieve these aims. Administrative punishment compensated for the things that were impossible to implement by jurisdictional activities of courts.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

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 issue of the forms of deciding an administrative case has not yet been analysed in a comprehensive manner. First of all, attention used to be paid to individual forms of deciding on an administrative case, namely: administrative decision, administrative ruling, administrative settlement and deciding an administrative case in a tacit manner. If there were collective generalizations made, they came down to administrative decision and administrative ruling, which are classified as classic administrative acts, while the recent introduction of non-typical forms of deciding an administrative case, i.e. administrative settlement and deciding an administrative case in a tacit manner, makes us re-consider the characteristics of their catalogue; in particular, it should be noted at this point that they constitute a substitute for an administrative decision, which is considered to be a classic administrative act. The evolution of the forms of deciding on an administrative case leads to the conclusion that their relationship with the administrative jurisdiction has ceased to be so obvious. ; Zagadnienie form załatwienia sprawy administracyjnej nie było dotąd analizowane w sposób kompleksowy. Przede wszystkim bowiem zwracano uwagę na poszczególne formy załatwienia sprawy administracyjnej, a mianowicie: decyzję administracyjną, postanowienie administracyjne, ugodę administracyjną i milczące załatwienie sprawy administracyjnej. Jeżeli dochodziło już do zbiorczych uogólnień, to ograniczały się one do decyzji administracyjnej i postanowienia administracyjnego, które zalicza się do klasycznych aktów administracyjnych. Tymczasem wprowadzenie ostatnio nietypowych form załatwienia sprawy administracyjnej, czyli ugody administracyjnej i milczącego załatwienia sprawy administracyjnej, zmusza do ponownej refleksji teoretycznej nad charakterystyką wyróżnionego ich katalogu. W szczególności należy podkreślić, że stanowią one substytut rozstrzygnięcia administracyjnego, za jaki uznaje się klasyczny akt administracyjny. Ewolucja form załatwienia sprawy administracyjnej prowadzi zatem do wniosku, że ich związek z jurysdykcją administracyjną przestaje być oczywisty.

The authors of the paper focused upon the general clause of social interest in the general administrative proceedings, as well as the proceedings before administrative courts and the administrative executive proceedings. Thus we got a comprehensive – although limited, considering the framework of the study – analysis of the function of this clause in the three main sets of proceedings constituting the system of administrative procedure. The paper discusses a complicated concept of social interest and its relationship to a concept of public interest. It must be emphasized that both of the terms mentioned above are used, among other things, in the regulations of the Code of Administrative Proceedings. The authors also analyze the questions regarding possibilities of a conflict between a social interest and an individual interest. ; Autorzy opracowania skupili swe rozważania na klauzuli generalnej interesu społecznego w ogólnym postępowaniu administracyjnym, postępowaniu sądowoadministracyjnym oraz postępowaniu egzekucyjnym w administracji. W ten sposób otrzymali kompleksową, aczkolwiek ograniczoną ze względu na ramy opracowania, analizę funkcji tej klauzuli w podstawowych postępowaniach systemu procedury administracyjnej. Artykuł wyjaśnia skomplikowane pojęcie interesu społecznego oraz jego stosunek do pojęcia interesu publicznego. Podkreślenia wymaga, że oba pojęcia występują choćby w przepisach kodeksu postępowania administracyjnego. Przedmiotem rozważań autorzy uczynili również kwestie dotyczące możliwości zaistnienia kolizji między interesem społecznym a interesem indywidualnym.

Deprivation of an entity of acquired rights deriving from an administrative act is possible through the combined application of administrative provisions of substantive and procedural law. The limits of durability acquired under an administrative decision rights are the constitutional principle of the protection of acquired rights and the general principles of administrative procedure. The permanence of the right acquired by the administrative decision is not absolute. Repeal or change of the administrative decision is possible only in the mode provided in the law, since the administrative decision makes use of the presumption of regularity. The deprivation of administrative and legal powers in the area of public law takes place in the context of an assessment of the implementation of an administrative decision carried out by a state body. This assessment is possible with the use of two procedural institutions for the expiry of an administrative decision and a substantive institution for the withdrawal of rights. The body assesses whether the addressee of an administrative act has implemented the administrative decision not only in accordance with its content but also the provisions of the generally applicable law. The deprivation of a party of an acquired right is often accompanied by the need to award damages (grant compensation). The procedure and premises for claiming compensation liability have been regulated in the provisions of substantive administrative law. The principle of the effectiveness of public administration bodies is one of the basic principles of administrative law. Its application is not limited only to the creation of law, but also includes the application of law by public administration bodies. The problem of the efficiency of operations of state bodies is of particular importance not only in the area of enforceability of an administrative decision, but also its authorising function. The efficiency of operations of entities in the State structure is assessed through the prism of the implementation of a given administrative decision.

Deprivation of an entity of acquired rights deriving from an administrative act is possible through the combined application of administrative provisions of substantive and procedural law. The limits of durability acquired under an administrative decision rights are the constitutional principle of the protection of acquired rights and the general principles of administrative procedure. The permanence of the right acquired by the administrative decision is not absolute. Repeal or change of the administrative decision is possible only in the mode provided in the law, since the administrative decision makes use of the presumption of regularity. The deprivation of administrative and legal powers in the area of public law takes place in the context of an assessment of the implementation of an administrative decision carried out by a state body. This assessment is possible with the use of two procedural institutions for the expiry of an administrative decision and a substantive institution for the withdrawal of rights. The body assesses whether the addressee of an administrative act has implemented the administrative decision not only in accordance with its content but also the provisions of the generally applicable law. The deprivation of a party of an acquired right is often accompanied by the need to award damages (grant compensation). The procedure and premises for claiming compensation liability have been regulated in the provisions of substantive administrative law. The principle of the effectiveness of public administration bodies is one of the basic principles of administrative law. Its application is not limited only to the creation of law, but also includes the application of law by public administration bodies. The problem of the efficiency of operations of state bodies is of particular importance not only in the area of enforceability of an administrative decision, but also its authorising function. The efficiency of operations of entities in the State structure is assessed through the prism of the implementation of a given administrative decision.

Rosja zawsze była państwem, które dążyło, aby być mocarstwem. Nawet jeżeli straciło znaczenie po rozpadzie ZSRR, to chęć powrotu jako twórcy porządku międzynarodowego, wymusza wypracowanie nowej strategii, która przewiduje użycie środków soft power. Stanowi to pewną przeszkodę dla Rosji, która tradycyjnie przygotowana jest do użycia sił zbrojnych czy presji ekonomicznej. Dużo gorzej jest z wykorzystaniem wartości, które w zamierzeniach Moskwy powinny być różne od Zachodu. Wynikało to z tego, że Rosja stara się stworzyć konkurencyjny do zachodu projekt soft power. Rosja stara się dobrze wykorzystać swoją dyplomację, w tym cyfrową, umiejętnie jej używając nawet jako narzędzi propagandy czy walki w cyberprzestrzeni. ; Russia has always been a country seeking the Great Power status. Even though it lost its importance after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the desire to return to the role of the creator of international order force it to introduce new strategy that will implement soft power resources. This represents a certain obstacle for Russia, which traditionally is accustomed to hard power resources like economic pressure or the use of armed forces. Culture is Russia's soft power resource that is significant. Values can be more problematic for Russia, because in Moscow's intentions they should be different from the Western values. Russia is trying to create an alternative soft power project, competitive to that of the West. Russia is trying to make good use of its diplomacy, including digital diplomacy, in order to show the use of its hard power to be seen as soft.