Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Jaar 2013 x Rubriek Article (without peer review) x

    Article 3:41 General administrative law act reads: Orders which are addressed to one or more interested parties shall be notified by being sent or issued to these, including the applicant. If an order cannot be notified in that manner, it shall be notified in any other suitable way. This article examines the extent of 'any other suitable way' and whether the objectives of the legislator have been achieved.


Rolf Ortlep
Rolf Ortlep is verbonden aan het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing van de Universiteit Utrecht.

    This contribution scrutinizes the effect of the General Administrative Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) on the doctrine of administrative supervision (bestuurlijk toezicht), especially on the (governmental) power of spontaneous annulment (spontane vernietigingsrecht) towards local authorities. In 1998 the legal provisions concerning administrative supervision have been transferred from the Local Government Act (Gemeentewet) to the General Administrative Act. Since then the doctrine was subject to several major changes, from which the 2006 Policy document on spontaneous annulment (Beleidskader spontane vernietiging) and the 2012 Act on re-vitalizing general supervision (Wet revitalisering generiek toezicht) are the most important. The provisions from the General Administrative Act concerning administrative supervision have hardly been changed; case law concerning spontaneous annulment mainly concerned the interpretation of the Policy documents. The provisions regarding administrative supervision and laid down in the General Administrative Act, can therefore be seen as of constant value of administrative supervision.


Mr. Hansko Broeksteeg
Mr. Broeksteeg is universitair hoofddocent Staatsrecht aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

    In the case of Byankov the Court of Justice ruled as follows: EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation under which an administrative procedure that has resulted in the adoption of a prohibition on leaving the territory, which has become final and has not been contested before the courts, may be reopened - in the event of the prohibition being clearly contrary to EU law - only in circumstances such as those exhaustively listed in Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, despite the fact that such a prohibition continues to produce legal effects with regard to its addressee. This study discusses how the ruling can be placed in the case law of the Court that in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, EU law does not require that administrative authorities be placed under an obligation to re-examine a national final administrative decision.


Rolf Ortlep
Rolf Ortlep is verbonden aan het Instituut voor Staats- en Bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht.

    If two or more educational institutions intend to merge, such institutions must obtain approval from the Minister of Education prior to merging in accordance with the “Educational Merger test Act” (Wet fusietoets onderwijs) which came into force on 1 October 2011. Since then, further to the implementation of the Educational Merger test Act, the Minister of Education has taken several decisions on merger requests from educational institutions. Prior to delivering a decision on a merger request the Minister of Education is advised by its advisory committee ("Adviescommissie fusietoets onderwijs"). This article describes and analyses the legal framework put into place be the Educational Merger test Act. It further analyses the functioning of the Act in its first year of existence and proposes solutions for problems found. The article in this respect focuses on the advice of the advisory committee.


T. Barkhuysen
Tom Barkhuysen is advocaat-partner bij Stibbe te Amsterdam en hoogleraars Staats- en bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit Leiden

Machteld Claessens
Machteld Claessens is advocaat bij Stibbe te Amsterdam.

    The legislator deliberately created a more restrained compensation duty for the legal costs made in the objection procedure, than for the costs made in the appeal procedure. According to article 7:15 of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, solely the legal costs made in the objection procedure are reimbursed at the request of the stakeholder, as far as the contested decision is revoked by reason of the tort due to the administration. The administration decides on this request when deciding on the objection. There are several disadvantages to this. That is particularly the case, when the stakeholder has lost his interest in the revocation of the contested decision during the procedure, and he solely wants his costs, made in the objection procedure, reimbursed. This raises the question of whether it would be better to regulate the legal costs made in the objection procedure in the same way as the legal costs made in the appeal procedure.


Inge van der Veen
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.