German administrative procedure in a comparative perspective: Observations on the path to a transnational ius commune proceduralis in administrative law

Pünder, Hermann

doi:10.1093/icon/mot045

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Відзначимо, що висвітлення проблематики спрощення процедур адміністративної юстиції, зокрема через запровадження моделі зразкової справи, є доволі актуальним у загальносвітовому та європейському дискурсі [2][3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: вступunclassified

The Institute for Exemplary Cases as a Procedural Tool to Ensure the Unity of Judicial Practice

Popov¹

2023

Plaw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The presented research is devoted to the theoretically and practically relevant issue of consideration of exemplary cases by the Supreme Court as a separate procedural tool for ensuring the unity of judicial practice. The purpose of the article is to develop the existing doctrinal views on the problems of functioning of the outlined institute and search for ways to improve the relevant procedures within the national procedural system. Achieving the set goal became possible thanks to the use of a complex of scientific research methods, in particular, dialectical, analysis and synthesis, structural-functional, formal-legal, formal-logical, comparative-legal, etc. Along with the analysis of the legislative categories "typical case" and "exemplary case", the features of such cases, a thorough description of the procedure for consideration of exemplary cases within the special administrative proceedings. The following stages of exemplary proceedings are distinguished as: submission of the case as exemplary; opening proceedings in a exemplary case and publication of a relevant announcement; consideration of the case and adoption of a exemplary decision; review of a exemplary decision. It is argued that the Supreme Court's decision in an exemplary case is the primary goal of ensuring predictability, consistency and uniformity of judicial enforcement in disputes of the same type. In addition, the need to distinguish between the legal opinions of the Supreme Court, formulated in the exemplary decisions and the legal opinions of the Supreme Court, formulated in the decisions on the results of cassation review of court cases, as having a different nature. Special attention is paid to the discussion of the possibility of implementing the institution of exemplary cases in other procedural orders, in particular, civil and economic proceedings. Based on the results of the research, the opinion is supported that despite the existing skepticism among scientists and the fundamental differences in the mechanism of legal regulation of public and private relations, the specificity of some types of private relations, which are characterized by mass, and disputes within the boundaries of which become the subject of judicial proceedings, allows to single out specific typological features of the relevant cases, and therefore, there is a possibility of their exemplary consideration according to the rules of civil procedure. This primarily concerns disputes in the field of consumer protection and tort disputes. In the aspect of the latter, as one of the catalysts for the introduction of the institute under study in civil proceedings, it may be necessary to address the issue of operational protection of civil rights of victims of Russian armed aggression against Ukraine.

show abstract

Section: вступunclassified

The Institute for Exemplary Cases as a Procedural Tool to Ensure the Unity of Judicial Practice

Popov¹

2023

Plaw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Aden (2015: p. 19) 'traditions include practices that have been established a long time ago and maintained at least during a certain period of time, often transferred from generation to generation'. One of the traditions is administrative law tradition or the legal tradition of administrative procedure, investigated by such authors as Nolte (1994), Painter and Peters (2010) and Pünder (2013). Going further, it is very important to determine whether there is something like 'German administrative legal tradition.'…”

Section: Legal Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition

Stachowiak-Kudła

Kudła

2021

Const Polit Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the theory of path dependence, we show that legal tradition affects the administrative court’s rulings. It also complements the two other reasons for diversified verdicts: the experience of the judges and courts (specialization) and preference (bias) for one of the parties. This effect is persistent even if the verdicts are controversial and result in serious consequences for a party and when the penalty paid by the complainant is perceived as excessive but fulfilling the strict rules of law. We prove that judicial decision making is a function of path dependency stemming from a legal tradition of the court. To confirm this, logistic regression is applied to a sample of 337 erroneous excise duty documentation cases of heating oil sales from all sixteen provincial administrative courts in Poland. Increasing the specialization of judges and having them exchange experiences may be a remedy for the unjustified adjudication differences.

show abstract

“…Affected parties (i.e., regulatory targets) and the general public are empowered to oversee executive agencies (Wagner, 2016) and to be consulted (Rose-Ackerman, 2021). As a 'judicially-policed process' (Ginsburg, 2008, p. 6), the observance of procedural requirements is ensured through judicial review (Jordao & Rose-Ackerman, 2014;Pünder, 2009Pünder, , 2013Wagner, 2016). As a result, the formalization 1 Delegated legislation is enacted by the executive branch as the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Affected parties (i.e., regulatory targets) and the general public are empowered to oversee executive agencies (Wagner, 2016) and to be consulted (Rose‐Ackerman, 2021). As a ‘judicially‐policed process’ (Ginsburg, 2008, p. 6), the observance of procedural requirements is ensured through judicial review (Jordao & Rose‐Ackerman, 2014; Pünder, 2009, 2013; Wagner, 2016). As a result, the formalization of public participation in legislation encompasses both elements of adversarial legalism: This American style of policymaking not only entails the legal formality of regulatory consultation, but also provides dissatisfied interest groups with the opportunity to challenge executive regulations (Barnes & Burke, 2020; Burke & Barnes, 2017; Kagan, 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three decades ago, Martin Shapiro predicted that among industrialized states, popular distrust of ‘bureaucratic discretion based on claimed expertise’ would lead to an increase in citizens demanding greater transparency and participation in rulemaking (Shapiro, 1993, p. 45–46; see also Pünder, 2013, p. 961). The yellow‐vest movement in France, local opposition to wind farms and new electric transmission lines in Germany, and anti‐vaccination protests around the world are cases in point of the need for ‘policymaking accountability’ (Rose‐Ackerman, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The enactment of public participation in rulemaking: A comparative analysis

Francesco¹,

Tosun

2022

Swiss Political Sci Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes the enactment of public participation in rulemaking within the European Union and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries. It relies on an original dataset of administrative procedural acts and administrative laws concerning the making of delegated legislation. As 12 out of 39 countries enacted a procedure of notification, publication, and consultation between 1995 and 2015, the study focuses on courts while controlling for other domestic institutional determinants of legislative adoption and countries' interdependence. The empirical findings show that countries with a highly independent judiciary system are less likely to enact a comprehensive provision for public participation in rulemaking. This finding highlights a paradox, namely that political systems are more likely to adopt rulemaking to enhance democratic legitimacy if they are characterized by a judicial system that does not actively pursue the legality of rulemaking. ZusammenfassungDiese Studie untersucht, wie die Öffentlichkeit an Rechtsetzungsverfahren in den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union und der OECD mitwirken kann. Hierzu verwendet sie einen neuartigen Datensatz, der Informationen zu den entsprechenden Verwaltungsverfahrensakten und Verwaltungsgesetzen enthält, die die rechtliche Grundlage hierfür schaffen. Zwischen 1995 und 2015 haben 12 der 39 untersuchten Staaten ein entsprechendes Notifizierungs-, Veröffentlichungs-und/ oder Konsultationsverfahren eingeführt, was uns dazu bewogen hat, den Untersuchungsfokus dieser Studie auf die Rolle von Gerichten zu legen. Gleichzeitig kontrollieren wir für den Einfluss von alternativen institutionellen Erklärungsfaktoren. Die empirischen Befunde zeigen, dass Länder mit unabhängigen Justizsystemen seltener der Öffentlichkeit die Möglichkeit einräumen, sich an Rechtsetzungsverfahren zu beteiligen.

show abstract

German administrative procedure in a comparative perspective: Observations on the path to a transnational ius commune proceduralis in administrative law

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

The Institute for Exemplary Cases as a Procedural Tool to Ensure the Unity of Judicial Practice

The Institute for Exemplary Cases as a Procedural Tool to Ensure the Unity of Judicial Practice

Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition

The enactment of public participation in rulemaking: A comparative analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About