This book is about judicial review of public administration. Many have regarded this to divide European legal orders, with judicial review of administrative action in the general courts or specialized administrative courts, or with different distance from the executive. There has been considerably less of comparison of the basic procedural and substantive principles. The comparative study in this book of procedural fairness and propriety in the courts reveals not only differences but also some common and connecting elements, in a 'common core' perspective. The book is divided into four parts. The first explains the nature and purpose of a comparison to understand the relevance and significance of commonality and diversity between the legal systems of Europe, and which considers other legal systems which are distant and distinct from Europe, such as China and Latin America. The second part contains an overview of the systems of judicial review in these legal orders. The third part, which is the heart of the 'common core' method, contains both a set of hypothetical cases and the solutions, according to the experts of the legal systems selected for our comparison, to the cases. The fourth part serves to examine the answers in comparative terms to ascertain not so much whether a 'common core' exists, but how it is shaped and evolves, also in response to the influence of supranational legal orders as the European Union and the Council of Europe.

This book provides a comparative analysis of the concept and concrete application of the system of indirect review of administrative action. The indirect review of administrative action is a judicial review mechanism that permits re-visiting already settled administrative measures. As an indirect way of challenging the validity of a measure or act by attacking the legal basis on which it is founded, it can regard either general acts or individual acts and measures. This book explores whether the system of indirect review is a suitable remedy for modern administrative justice, assessing whether it fairly balances the legality and the legal certainty principles. It examines the tension between the two principles and seeks to establish what the standards of review are and whether a common European trend can be discerned by analysing the theory and practice from jurisdictions in Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the EU legal system. The book will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers and policy-makers working in the areas of Administrative Law, EU law, and Public Administration.

"This volume is a collection of the papers presented at the first ('kick-off') meeting in ... Dornburg, near Jena (Germany), 26-28 May 2005."--Foreword.

This casebook studies the law governing judicial review of administrative action. It examines the foundations and the organisation of judicial review, the types of administrative action, and corresponding kinds of review and access to court. Significant attention is also devoted to the conduct of the court proceedings, the grounds for review, and the standard of review and the remedies available in judicial review cases. The relevant rules and case law of Germany, England and Wales, France and the Netherlands are analysed and compared. The similarities and differences between the legal systems are highlighted. The impact of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is considered, as well as the influence of EU legislative initiatives and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the legal systems examined. Furthermore, the system of judicial review of administrative action before the European courts is studied and compared to that of the national legal systems. During the last decade, the growing influence of EU law on national procedural law has been increasingly recognised. However, the way in which national systems of judicial review address the requirements imposed by EU law differs substantially. The casebook compares the primary sources (legislation, case law etc) of the legal systems covered, and explores their differences and similarities: this examination reveals to what extent a ius commune of judicial review of administrative action is developing.

This book deals with one of the greatest challenges for the judiciary in the 21st century. It reflects on the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative discretion in the administrative state; a role that can no longer solely be understood from the traditional doctrine of the Trias Politica. Traditionally, courts review acts of administrative bodies implying a degree of discretion with quite some restraint. Typically it is reviewed whether the decision is non-arbitrary or whether there is no manifest error of assessment. The question arises though as to whether the concern regarding ensuring the non-arbitrary character of the exercise of administrative power, which is frequently performed at a distance from political bodies, goes far enough to guarantee that the administration exercises its powers in a legitimate way. This publication searches for new modes of judicial review of administrative discretion exercised in the administrative state. It links state-of-the-art academic research on the role of courts in the administrative state with the daily practice of the higher and lower administrative courts struggling with their position in the evolving administrative state. The book concludes that with the changing role and forms of the administrative state, administrative courts across the world and across sectors are in the process of reconsidering their roles and the appropriate models of judicial review. Learning from the experiences in different sectors and jurisdictions, it provides theoretical and empirical foundations for reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of different models of review, the constitutional consequences and the main questions that deserve further research and debate. Jurgen de Poorter is professor of administrative law at Tilburg University and deputy judge in the District Court of The Hague. Ernst Hirsch Ballin is distinguished university professor at Tilburg University, professor in human rights law at the University of Amsterdam, and president of the T.M.C. Asser Institute for International and European Law. He is also a member of the Scientific Council for Government policy (WRR). Saskia Lavrijssen is professor of Economic Regulation and Market Governance of Network Industries at Tilburg University.

This book unites scholarship on law and politics with compliance research in the EU to shed light on the political role of a neglected dimension of litigation in the EU: the political role of governmental actions for annulment. The book does not portray national governments as passive actors within the EU’s judicial arena. Instead it focuses on cases in which national governments turn to the Court of Justice to litigate against the European Commission, and provides several answers to the question of why EU member state governments take this decision. Governments hope, on the one hand, to evade costly domestic adjustments where the Commission uses administrative acts to interfere with domestic policy application. On the other hand, governments hope to provoke judicial law-making to influence the long-term development of EU administrative law and sectoral regulation. The book will be of particular interest to political scientists and legal scholars. .

"The traditional state model, based on a domestic approach to rule of law, is currently evolving towards a new one, where international factors and relations play a prominent role. This trend is also characterized by the pre-eminence of executive powers, along with a weakening of parliamentary balances and judicial controls. This work seeks to answer two essential questions concerning the rule of law: how can citizens challenge public decisions affecting them, and what kinds of public decisions can be judicially controlled. Two groups of legal regulations are considered in this analysis: the so-called European legal tradition, covering nine national laws strongly influenced by Council of Europe legal standards since 1950, and the more recent body of European Union law. The authors conclude that the issue of individual guarantees vis-à-vis public powers should be carefully monitored in Europe."--

In light of the variety of legal traditions in Council of Europe member states in relation to administrative law, this publication details Recommendation Rec (2004) 20, adopted in December 2004, which sets out general rules for the judicial review of administrative acts, in order to consolidate the rule of law and human rights in Europe. The Recommendation sets out five principles which are to be applied by the governments of member states, relating to the scope of judicial review, access to judicial review, the independence and impartiality of the courts, the right to a fair trial and the effectiveness of judicial review.

Law and Administration in Europe consists of a series of essays addressing central themes in domestic public law and in the public law of the European Union. These contributions deal with a whole range of issues, including the theoretical underpinnings of public law, the public-private divide, the nature and legitimacy of governmental action, and the relationship between different levels of government.