Suchergebnisse

Administrative liability, as a type of legal coercion, is important for maintaining law and order, protection of an individual, protection of human rights and freedoms, performance of tasks and functions of the state. The description of administrative liability, given in the article, is connected with its inherent features and peculiarities of an administrative offense (misdemeanour). The most significant attention is paid to the issue, connected with public danger of an illegal act, taking into account the conceptual changes in criminal legislation, and, thus, criminal liability and as a consequence of administrative liability. The concept of reforming the Criminal Legislation provides for the preparation in addition to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the emergence of the phenomenon of "criminal misdemeanours" in the legislation of Ukraine, for committing of which there is criminal liability before the court (the judge), the author raises the question of defining such criminal offense as a socially dangerous act, but of less public danger than a crime, and all other misdemeanours (administrative) should be considered harmful, but not socially dangerous. Cases of such misdemeanours should be considered during administrative proceedings, according to the (procedural) rules defined in the Code on Administrative Offenses. Using the experience of legal regulation of European countries, we thus implement our legislation to the European one, but taking into account our national traditions and maintaining the fundamental principles of criminal law and maintaining such principles regarding administrative liability. So, criminal liability arises only in accordance with the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) as socially dangerous acts, and administrative liability arises in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (misdemeanours) that ...

Recent discussion in Administrative Law has begun to re-examine the relationship between public administration and citizenship. It is recognition of public administration's important civic role beyond formal administration. It is, as well, recognition that the dimensions of an "Administrative Citizenship" are subject to new realities, and, where, perhaps, the notion of citizen in public law, traditionally associated primarily with nationality and electoral rights, is also due for re-examination. In researching the history of these constructs of citizen and "administré", it is seen that 19th century doctrine made little distinction. Therefore the recent developments are more a re-convergence than an innovation. Yet still these developments have had to contend with such new realities, political and social, which have established that "Administrative Citizenship" no longer totally excludes non-nationals.Administrative Citizenship consists in the proffering of a series of rights to the "administré". A real power is accorded to them as well by the renewed participation in a greater variety of forms of administrative proceedings. In a sense there is an evolution in what is considered due to the Administrative Citizen. It is shifting the focus from a strict procedural duty, to a broader public accountability, and, perhaps, further to a duty to enhance the participatory experience of the citizen in public administration. ; En reconnaissant que l'administré est aussi un citoyen, des textes récents considèrent que la relation administrative est irréductible à un rapport d'usage et comporte une dimension civique ; les implications de cette "citoyenneté administrative" ne sont pourtant pas toujours élucidées. Cette identification soulève en effet de nombreuses interrogations, en particulier à l'égard de la notion de citoyenneté, traditionnellement présentée en droit public comme reliée à la nationalité et aux droits électoraux.Pourtant, l'examen des constructions respectives des notions d'administré et de citoyen montre ...

This book, by two of the world's leading administrative law scholars, reimagines administrative law as the law of public administration by making its competence the focus of administrative law. Grounded in extensive interdisciplinary, historical, and doctrinal analysis, Fisher and Shapiro show why understanding both the capacity and authority of expert public administration is crucial to ensure the legitimacy and accountability of the administrative state. To address the current precarious state of administrative law, they support a new study of the administrative process by an Attorney Generals Committee on Administrative Procedure leading to a revised Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This book is a must-read for anyone interested in administrative law and its reform.

The state we are in -- Expert administrative capacity -- Administrative accountability -- Enlightened foundations -- Debating administrative law : from the spoils system to the new deal -- The emergence of administrative law and the limits of legal imagination -- The narrowing of the administrative law imagination -- Administrative competence and the Chevron doctrine -- Hard look review -- Conclusion : towards an enlightened administrative law.

La démocratie administrative n'est pas un mécanisme inutile. Par conséquent, les éléments suivants sont considérés dans cet article: référendum sur l'initiative citoyenne au niveau local, organes consultatifs au niveau local qui rassemblent les fonctionnaires au niveau local et les clients finaux, les messages issus de la démocratie administrative, etc. Il souligne que la démocratie administrative favorise la participation dans la prise de décision publique par divers professionnels et la nécessité de la présence systématique de divers participants à la discussion (associations civiles, etc.). Enfin, les inconvénients de la démocratie administrative sont également observés. ; Administrativna demokracija nije beskoristan mehanizam. Stoga se u ovom članku razmatra: referendum o građanskoj inicijativi na lokalnoj razini, savjetodavna tijela na lokalnoj razini koja okupljaju dužnosnike na lokalnoj razini i krajnje korisnike, poruke koje proizlaze iz upravne demokracije itd. Naglašava da administrativna demokracija favorizira sudjelovanje u javnom odlučivanju raznih stručnih ljudi i potrebi sustavne prisutnosti različitih sudionika u raspravi (građanske udruge, itd.). Naposljetku, uočeni su i nedostaci upravne demokracije. ; Administrative democracy is not a useless mechanism. Therefore, the following is considered in this article: referendum upon citizen initiative at local level, advisory bodies at local level which gather officials at local level and ultimate customers, the messages which emerge from administrative democracy, etc. It stresses that administrative democracy favors participation in public decision making by various professional people, and the need for the systematic presence of various participants in discussion (civil associations, etc.). Finally, the downsides of administrative democracy are also observed.

by Georges Langrod « Maître de recherches », French National Centre for Scientific Research, Full Professor at the University of the Saar The legal aspect of administrative procedure is traditionally neglected by the Science of administrative Law. Considered as a technical problem, it is left to administrative scientists only. The whole legal operation preceding the administrative decision remains outside the sphere of scientific analysis, thereby impoverishing our knowledge of the administrative phenomenon. On the one hand the specialist in administrative law respects to a surprising degree the tradition that administrative law regulates the aims of administrative action, but leaves the ways leading to accomplishment of these aims solely to administrative technicians. On the other hand, the specialist in Public Administration sees only the essential contradiction between the strict bounds of restrictive legal precept and the necessary elasticity of administrative action. He defends the latter and is therefore prima facie opposed to the former. Although the Administration should be as unhampered as possible in order to be effective in everyday life, the « Rechtsstaat » — with its characteristic curtailment of « Le Roy le veult » — is founded also on the active participation of cujus res agitur in administrative disputes. This participation assures at the same time an important control of administrative action by the citizen. It constitutes one of the victories of political democracy over the unbridled licence of « royal pleasure ». Political expediency can no longer be considered as the only motivation of all administrative action. Nevertheless it should not be undervalued: a balance must be sought between the legal, technical and political aspects of this action, the political aspect being accepted in its widest sence. The process of « juridicalisation » of Administration through administrative Law — extended even to administrative procedure — must be constantly scrutinized with a view to controlling the effects of old mental habits and conservative approach to Public Administration and to administrative management. Professor Langrod examines, in all its aspects, the generally underestimated but important problem of « purely administrative » procedure, i.e. of non-contentious disputes within the frame of administrative action. He discusses the different approaches of the traditional doctrine to this problem and its frequent lack of comprehension in this field. Having weighed the consequences of the traditional application of procedural theory and process rules to justice alone, the author goes on to examine — by methods of comparison — the present-day solutions to the problem. These solutions are grouped under three principal headings: — administrative systems with well-developed administrative Law but without any « processual » approach, such as those existing in France and Germany. This approach is reserved only for the administrative courts («juridiction administrative», «Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit»). Everything which happens within the framework of « pure » Administration is left, almost entirely, to the discretion of internal rules, under the subsequent judicial control of legality; — « mixed » systems, or half-way solutions, i.e. mainly the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of « quasi-judicial » functions, presupposing the existence of a dispute between equal parties, before the Administration. The procedural rights of these parties, accorded by law or by practice, differentiate this type of procedure from the « purely » administrative activity. Thus appear in England the so-called « administrative tribunals » which are not judicial courts, but administrative authorities with a particular process, resulting from the fundamentals of fair play in administrative action. To this group belong also the administrative systems of Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Italy and Sweden, where — if not always the legislature and practice — at least the doctrine of administrative Law and the jurisprudence in administrative matters frequently accept a procedural point of view for the administrative action; — systems comprising a complete « processual » sector of administrative Law doctrine and a legislative codification of legal procedure of Public Administration. This is the case in Austria and three other countries of Central-Eastern Europe where in the years 1925-1930 « codes of administrative procedure » appeared, and are still obligatory. In spite of changes after 1945 in countries now under Communist regime, in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the great Austrian model remains unchanged. The United States of America, owing to the A.P.A. 1946, are found in the same group, because of their global approach to this problem of administrative dispute, based on the classical « due process » doctrine and on the application of the « audi alteram partem » formula (through adjudication, hearing, notice, examiners corps, etc.). Professor Langrod's study comprises administrative dispute considered as an integral part of a « general legal procedure », constituting in theory a « processual » uniformity, regardless of the sector of Law to which it applies. Thus procedural approach ceases to be a monopoly of justice as it was for centuries, and has to be extended to all official actions concerning parties' interests or rights. The author endeavours finally to formulate some general principles of administrative legal procedure, based on empirical comparative experience. After having examined and summarized these principles, he concludes that the great process of « juridicalization » of Public Administration has generally desirable effects. It brings about more social outlook, the true democratization of Administration owing to the active and « organized » co-operation between authorities and parties) and the fact that — if well conceived and balanced — legal rules tend not to hamper, but rather to guide the processes of litigation, to the true interests of legal security and administrative efficiency.