This paper show why the standardization of administrative procedure is important for the state legal system that, in the last two decades, the administrative procedure codes were adopted in almost all of the European states. Afterwards author analyzed main driving forces for development of administrative procedural law at the level of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The most important legal sources of European administrative procedural law (basic standards, principles, recommendations and guidelines in this area) are concisely presented but it is clearly indicated that there are certain ambiguities, that these sources don't apply equally to all institutions of the Union, and that they still don't make finished, complete and forever given system that can be automatically transferred to jurisprudence of the member states and candidate countries. Moreover, often administrative process laws of the member states contain rules that are not existing in this kind of regulation at European Union level and that is why the process of adopting the first European Union general law on administrative procedure was initiated, which would further improve the standards of European administrative process in general. When it comes to the general administrative procedure of the Republic of Serbia it has been shown that in spite of the strategic orientation towards the reform of the Law on Administrative Procedure expressed in numerous strategies, our executive authorities in this area have not yet moved beyond the development of the third version of the Draft Law on General administrative Procedure which was afterward adopted by the Government as the Bill. In his final remarks the author concludes stating that the largest number of European standards of administrative process are included in the final version of the Draft, but without eliminating the shortcomings of the existing Law, and without normative adjusting to the circumstances in which the Serbian administration operates, and with unnecessary abandonment of some solutions that have proved to be right in the decades-long practice of administrative authorities.
Abstract. The Covid-19 pandemic has transformed our society, with administrative procedures – as relationships between public authorities and citizens and businesses – being no exception. Still, the innovative digitalisation of such procedures means the 58 administrative units across Slovenia have been able to develop a responsive administrative system. Using normative, descriptive and statistical research methods, the article identifies the relevant drivers and barriers, like user demands leading to a more responsive service, the lack of legal bases, and the top-down approach discouraging progress. Correlation analysis shows that digitalisation also holds important positive implications for the principles of good governance. Moreover, larger administrative units are more likely to achieve a higher degree of digitalisation and hence better public governance. The findings are useful for designing evidence-based public policies to properly respond to pandemic-associated challenges. Keywords: public administration, administrative procedures, Covid-19, good public governance, innovation, digitalisation, Slovenia
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 this paper, the author points to the outdated textbook classification of states into three groups, according to whether they have carried out the codification of administrative procedure or not. The first group includes the states that have administrative procedures fully codified. The second group comprises the states with the so-called mixed systems, which have uncodified procedural regulations related to the administration, while the third group contains a few states that do not have administrative procedural regulations at all. The author analyzes recent changes in this highly dynamic field in order to specify general patterns, common characteristics and peculiarities of regulations of general administrative procedure in contemporary states. The paper especially points to the general acceptance of the concept of administrative act but also underscores the differences in its content in various legal systems. The author has identified and analyzed some smaller standalone trends, such as: the increasing complexity of administrative procedures along the lines of judicial procedures, and the most recent deviations from this trend; the increasing presence of administrative contracting and other forms of alternative dispute resolutions of administrative matters; and the growing insistence on the principle of citizens' participation in administrative proceedings. The goal of the analysis is to determine the degree of influence of the Global and European administrative law on the national regulations, to explore the activities of certain expert organizations bringing together a number of experts in the field of comparative administrative law, and to discuss the course of the latest regulations in this area.
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.
A decade ago, Serbia has carried out the reform of judicial control of public administration - by establishing the new Administrative Court. The expected results, however, have not been achieved and the problems that caused the reform have not been resolved. Therefore, a decade later, a new reform is in sight. The planned changes include establishing more administrative courts and introducing a two-instance administrative dispute. The aim of this paper is to discuss these changes, but in a slightly different way. Instead of their uncritical acceptance and justification by European legal standards, they are analysed having in mind the legal nature of the administrative dispute. Successful administrative dispute reform cannot be achieved if European legal standards are blindly accepted and copied literally from classical court proceedings. Only the legal nature of the administrative dispute and the features that make it special and different from the usual court disputes can lead us to a successful implementation of the changes.
A fair assessment of the evidence is very important in any type of process. For this purpose, it is very often useful to follow the findings of specialists and experts. The results of expert research are used to implement the tasks of administering justice. Timely and high-quality expert investigations should help courts to establish the truth in administrative cases, and pretrial investigation institutions to detect offenses quickly and in detail. The purpose of this study is to analyze the status of private experts during the administrative process, determining the relevance of their findings in the evidentiary process. The study found that the application of expertise in the administrative process is of particular importance. A private forensic expert has a dual status in administrative proceedings, i. y. he may act as a specialist in his field and draw up the relevant documents in accordance with the legislation governing that field, or he may act as a private forensic expert who draws up the findings of an expert examination in accordance with procedural law and the Forensic Law. The status of a forensic expert is a procedural status and is to be used in accordance with the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination only in actions related to the parties to the proceedings in the investigation and hearing of cases. A private expert who performs forensic examination or privately consults the parties to the proceedings must comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics of Forensic Experts and the rights and obligations established in the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination. An analysis of the provisions of the above-mentioned legal regulation and case law leads to the conclusion that private experts are subject to the same requirements in the administrative process as for forensic experts, but their rights are limited.
A fair assessment of the evidence is very important in any type of process. For this purpose, it is very often useful to follow the findings of specialists and experts. The results of expert research are used to implement the tasks of administering justice. Timely and high-quality expert investigations should help courts to establish the truth in administrative cases, and pretrial investigation institutions to detect offenses quickly and in detail. The purpose of this study is to analyze the status of private experts during the administrative process, determining the relevance of their findings in the evidentiary process. The study found that the application of expertise in the administrative process is of particular importance. A private forensic expert has a dual status in administrative proceedings, i. y. he may act as a specialist in his field and draw up the relevant documents in accordance with the legislation governing that field, or he may act as a private forensic expert who draws up the findings of an expert examination in accordance with procedural law and the Forensic Law. The status of a forensic expert is a procedural status and is to be used in accordance with the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination only in actions related to the parties to the proceedings in the investigation and hearing of cases. A private expert who performs forensic examination or privately consults the parties to the proceedings must comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics of Forensic Experts and the rights and obligations established in the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination. An analysis of the provisions of the above-mentioned legal regulation and case law leads to the conclusion that private experts are subject to the same requirements in the administrative process as for forensic experts, but their rights are limited.
