Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the principle of ex officio investigation in German, Polish and Ukrainian legal doctrine as well as its regulation in relevant general laws (codes) on administrative procedure.Taking into account the legal possibility of future judicial review of its decision, an authorized public administration entity cannot be guided in adopting an administrative act only by evidence presented to it by an individual and in which the circumstances favorable to it will objectively prevail. Indeed, if judicial or even administrative (in the procedure of administrative appeal) review reveals other factual circumstances, then the decision of the public administration entity is likely to be found unlawful.So the principle of ex officio investigation is to impose on the public administration the duty: to fully and comprehensively examine all the factual circumstances of the case, not just the evidence presented to it by the participants in the administrative procedure; even without the participants' requests, on their own initiative, to require additional necessary and sufficient evidences for a complete and comprehensive research; based on the research of the evidence, to form own belief about the right decision and to make it (taking into account the relevant requirements of the participants, but not necessarily satisfying them).It is also noted in the article that participants in administrative proceedings have not only procedural rights (such as to be heard) but also duties. In particular, they are obliged to assist the public administration in investigating all the factual circumstances of the case. Failure to comply with this obligation may lead to decisions of the public administration entities that do not satisfy the requirements of the administrative procedure participants. The author is convinced that such a provision should be enshrined in the future Ukrainian law (code) on administrative procedure.The principle of ex officio investigation significantly differentiates the law of administrative procedure (and administrative process) from civil process (according to Ukrainian current legislation also - economic process). This principle limits the validity of well-known by most of lawyers adversarial and dispositive principles, which are also used in administrative procedural legislation, but to a much lesser extent. ; Окреслено зміст принципу офіційного дослідження у німецькій, польській та українській правовій доктрині, а також його закріплення у відповідних законах (кодексах) про адмі­ні­стративну процедуру.Цей принцип полягає у покладенні на публічну адміністрацію обов'язків: повно і всебічно дослідити усі фактичні обставини справи, а не лише представлені їй учасниками адміністративної процедури докази; навіть без клопотань учасників, з власної ініціативи витребувати додатково необхідні та достатні докази для повного і всебічного дослідження; на основі проведеного дослідження доказів сформувати власне переконання про право­мірне рішення і ухвалити його (враховуючи відповідні вимоги учасників, але не обов'язково їх задовольняючи).Також зауважено, що учасники адміністративної процедури володіють не лише проце­дурними правами (наприклад, бути заслуханим), але й обов'язками. Зокрема, вони зобо­в'язані сприяти публічній адміністрації у дослідженні всіх фактичних обставин справи, а невиконання цього обов'язку може призводити до рішень суб'єктів публічного адміністру­вання, в яких не буде задоволено вимог учасників адміністративної процедури.Принцип офіційного дослідження істотно відрізняє право адміністративної процедури (та адміністративного процесу) від цивільного (за українським законодавством – і госпо­дарського) процесу. Цей принцип обмежує дію відомих принципів змагальності та диспози­тивності, які також використовують в адміністративно-процедурному законодавстві, проте у значно меншому обсязі.

Artificial intelligence is becoming an element of everyday life, and also a part of administrative proceedings. The legislator systematically adds regulations that allow public administration bodies to use artificial intelligence. At the same time, the Code of Administrative Procedure has not been amended in this respect. The article tries to establish what artificial intelligence evidence is. In addition, the issue of whether the rules on administrative evidence should be changed to cover the use of AI evidence is examined.

State agencies are required to promulgate as rules any "statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy that describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of any agency. Proposed orders of rulemaking are published by the Secretary of State in the Missouri Register. There is a comment period of at least 30 days for each proposed rule or revision and the proposing department may order a hearing on the rule. The final order of rulemaking must be filed within 90 days of the later of the 30 day comment period or the hearing on the rule and becomes effective 30 days after it is distributed in the Code of State Regulations (CSR). Consequently, most rules become effective approximately 6 months after their initial publication. ; Missouri Legislative Academy

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.

The law on administrative procedure regulates the processes through which administrative decisions and administrative projects are elaborated. It is more and more regarded as essential in administrative laws: it is really considered as the central part of it in some systems. In many jurisdictions, rules concerning administrative procedure are codified, gathered in a single piece of general legislation: in a few, it remains non codified.The book is made of the different contributions presented on the topic to the last congress of the International Academy of International Law (Taipei, 2012)

Considering that the expansion of legal regulation and multiplication of legal norms in the legal order of the Republic of Serbia have engendered over two hundred (substantive and procedural) legislative acts referring to the application of the General Administrative Procedure Act (GAPA), there is no general law in the Serbian legal order that could be compared to the GAPA in terms of correlation with other laws. Yet, in our judicature and legal science, there are no clear criteria for regulating the relationship between the GAPA and other (subject-specific) legislative acts referring to the application of the GAPA provisions. The relationship between the GAPA and subject-specific legislative acts may be based on the regime of legal subordination and the regime of legal referral. It further leads to the distinction between subsidiary and analoguous application of the general law, which is the author's original standpoint. Analogous application entails the application of the general law in accordance with the nature of the relationship between the legal procedure rules and the subject matter of legal regulation, whereas subsidiary application entails the application of the general law as a whole in all matters which are not regulated by a subject-specific law. In view of the obligation to harmonize subject-specific legislative acts with the GAPA, the author is of the opinion that such harmonization cannot be put into effect without amending the GAPA. Therefore, the GAPA provisions shall: (1) embody the distinction between subsidiary and analogous application of the GAPA, and (2) strengthen the direct application of the GAPA in administrative matters.

Dean Acheson, chairman. ; Issued also in mimeographed form as Monograph[s] no. 12, 15-27. ; --pt. 1. Administration of the Fair labor standards act of 1938. Wage and hour division. Children's bureau.--pt. 2. War department.--pt. 3. Social security board.--pt. 4. Railway labor. The National railroad adjustment board. The National mediation board.--pt. 5. National labor relations board.--pt. 6. Civil aeronatics authority.--pt. 7. Department of the interior.--pt. 8. United States Employees' compensation commission.--pt. 9. Administration of internal revenue laws. Bureau of internal revenue. Board of tax appeals. Processing tax board of review.--pt. 10. Bituminous coal division. Department of the interior.--pt. 11. Interstate commerce commission.--pt. 12. Federal power commission.--pt. 13. Securities and exchange commission.--pt. 14. Administration of the customs laws. United States Tariff commission. Bureau of customs. ; Mode of access: Internet.

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.

Administrative procedure acts : history, features and reception / Paul Craig, Giacinto della Cananea, Diana-Urania Galetta, Oriol Mir, Jens-Peter Schneider, Ulrich Stelkens, Marek Wierzbowski, Jacques Ziller -- Book I : General provisions / Drafting team, Paul Craig, Deirdre Curtin, Giacinto della Cananea, Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Oriol Mir, Jens-Peter Schneider, Marek Wierzbowski, Jacques Ziller -- Book II : Administrative rulemaking / Drafting team, Deirdre Curtin, Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Joana Mendes -- Book III : Single-case decision-making / Drafting team, Paul Craig, Giacinto della Cananea, Oriol Mir, Jens-Peter Schneider, Vanessa M. Tünsmeyer, Marek Wierzbowski -- Book IV : Contracts / Drafting team, Jean-Bernard Auby, Michael Mirschberger, Hanna Schröder, Ulrich Stelkens, Jacques Ziller -- Book V : Mutual assistance / Drafting team, Diana-Urania Galetta, Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Jens-Peter Schneider, Vanessa M. Tünsmeyer -- Book VI : Administrative information management / Drafting team, Diana-Urania Galetta, Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Micaela Lottini, Nikolaus Marsch, Jens-Peter Schneider, Morgane Tidghi