Zoekresultaat: 6 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Rubriek Article (peer reviewed) x

    A cassation court traditionally has two tasks: a unifying task and a corrective task. The unifying task consists of verifying the internal legality of a lower court’s decision (the correct application and interpretation of the law by the lower courts). The corrective task refers to verifying the external legality of the lower court’s decision. The cassation court must ensure that the decisions of the courts concerned are in conformity with the requirements of proper administration of justice. This article focuses on the following question: is it necessary that the Belgian Council of State, acting in the capacity of a cassation court, performs both traditional tasks (corrective and unifying)? This is by no means self-evident, given the specific judicial structure in which the Belgian Council of State operates.


Elsbeth Loncke
Ph.D. at Hasselt University, Belgium, and attorney at the bar of Limburg, Belgium.

    The codification of policy rules is based on the assumption that public authorities will adopt their policy in policy rules and that judges will use these policy rules when assessing individual decisions. However, codification might have side effects, like the existence of rules that do not meet the criteria of policy rules. This article examines the extent to which the objectives of the legislator have been achieved. It is concluded that public bodies indeed adopt policy rules more and more, but that these rules do not always meet the standards. Administrative courts appear to use rules when assessing decisions, but do not seem to follow the scheme as laid down in the GALA. The codification resulted in a complexity of rules, but this complexity does not hamper judicial review. After all: the judicial review is centered on the individual decision, not so much on the nature of the applied rule.


Albertjan Tollenaar Ph.D.

    This article examines the subsidy rules as they have developed since the introduction of the subsidy title into the General Administrative Law Act (GALA) fifteen years ago. What did experts at that time consider to be the most important parts of the subsidy title and what were their expectations in that regard? We will consider, for certain selected topics, which main developments have taken place in legal practice over the past fifteen years, based mainly on an analysis of the case law. The most important features and trends will be outlined in this article. Finally, we will consider whether these features and trends can teach us anything about (the development of) the GALA that may still be relevant for the legislator today, when designing general rules of administrative law.


Rianne Jacobs
Rianne Jacobs is raadadviseur bij de Directie Wetgeving van het Ministerie van V&J

Willemien den Ouden
Willemien den Ouden is hoogleraar bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden

    In 1998 a chapter on administrative enforcement was added to the GALA (in the so-called third Tranche). This contribution reflects on the legislative aims of this Tranche; to what extent these aims have been attained and what important developments have occurred since. As the third Tranche has led to little reform, a brief review will suffice. The developments after the third Tranche are discussed extensively, concerning both the third Tranche - amongst others the obligation in principle to enforce ('beginselplicht tot handhaving') - and reparatory sanctions since the fourth Tranche (2009), which amongst others regulated the execution of administrative reparatory sanctions and added regulation on administrative fines (a punitive sanction). Additionally, more general provisions of administrative law enforcement are discussed. The development of administrative enforcement are reflected against general developments in administrative law, such as harmonization and the increase of litigation. Lastly some bottlenecks will be noticed and solutions proposed.


Prof.mr.drs. Lex Michiels

    This article examines the actual application of European administrative soft law in light of the Dutch principle of legality. European administrative soft law is not legally binding. However, European administrative soft law can generate judicial binding effects for the Member States on the basis of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. Moreover, the research on the actual application of administratice soft law in the field of European subsidies shows that it can also have a 'de facto' binding effect for the Member Sates.

    The (legal and actual) binding effects of European administrative soft law are problematic in light of the principle of legality, according to which binding norms must be laid down in hard law. The article argues that with the application of administrative soft law, three functions of the principle of legality (the principle provides legal certainty and legitimacy and serves as a safeguard against public authorities) are not sufficiently met. Several possible solutions that may resolve this tension are proposed.


Claartje van Dam
Claartje van Dam is masterstudent Staats- en Bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden.

    This publication discusses all aspects of causal connection between damages and unlawful governmental decisions.


Laura Di Bella
: Laura Di Bella is als PhD. fellow verbonden aan de afdeling Staats- en bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Leiden. Zij doet onderzoek naar de bijzondere positie van de overheid in het onrechtmatigedaadsrecht.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.