Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 16 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Netherlands Administrative Law Library 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 contribution assesses Germany’s better regulation system as quality assurance system. At first, the paper outlines the development of the system over the last years and describes its main characteristics. The introduction of the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat (National Regulatory Control Council) in 2006 can be seen as a cornerstone in this respect. The competency of the National Regulatory Control Council was extended in 2011 and a new concept of cost measurement of regulatory costs - compliance costs - was introduced. The new concept captures not only the costs arising from information obligations, but all compliance costs of a regulation. Secondly, the paper discusses the challenges to the better regulation system, in particular, those due to Germany’s federal structure providing in most legislative areas for a separation of actual law making at the federal level and execution of laws by the German Länder (and their municipalities).


Dirk Zeitz
Research Fellow at Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung (FÖV).Contact details: Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer, Email: zeitz@foev-speyer.de, Phone: +49 (0)6232 654-301.

    In the theory, legislation and practice of regulation and conduct of administrative procedures, trends towards the concept of good administration can be detected at both supra- and national levels. Based on normative and comparative-legal analyses of Slovene (1999), Croatian (2009) and the EP Resolution (2013) administrative procedure acts (APAs), the article identifies user-oriented institutions that pursue the principles of good administration. Furthermore, it examines acceleration and braking mechanisms that influence the duration of procedures (e.g. setting and shortening time limits, positive fiction, preclusions, and enforcement of procedural errors, broader participation of affected parties, legal protection). Timely and efficient decision-making viewed as a human right with balanced protection of public and private legal interests is in fact crucial for achieving good administration. Hence, in conclusion, the authors propose selected changes de lege ferenda for the reregulation of APAs in Slovenia and beyond, in support of less excessive length of procedures.


Tina Sever

Polonca Kovac
Artikel

Peer_reviewedAccess_open The way to mediation in Belgian administrative procedural law

Tijdschrift Netherlands Administrative Law Library, februari 2016
Auteurs Lise Vandenhende, Brecht Warnez en Prof.dr. Ludo Veny
Samenvatting

    Given the rise of mediation in other legal disciplines and the influence of the EU, the call for mediation is increasing in Belgian administrative practice. Several years ago, the legislature took the first steps towards mediation in the judicial administrative procedure. This contribution is a study of the existing forms of mediation with its limitations and possibilities. Taking these findings into account, a possible mediation framework, applicable in the Belgian legal system, is proposed.


Lise Vandenhende

Brecht Warnez

Prof.dr. Ludo Veny
Artikel

Peer_reviewedAccess_open De strijd van de burgemeester tegen drugscriminaliteit

Een eerste statistische analyse van de toepassing van artikel 13b Opiumwet

Tijdschrift Netherlands Administrative Law Library, oktober 2015
Auteurs Mr. dr. Michel Vols en Michelle Bruijn LLB
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Dutch local authorities are entitled to close down a building because of drug-related crime. After closure, occupiers are not allowed to live there for a while. The number of closures because of drug-related crime increases. Although the closure of a home is a most serious interference with the right to respect for one’s private life and home, the procedure has not been analyzed systematically. This paper provides the first statistic empirical analysis of litigation concerning drug-related closures of homes in the Netherlands. The paper contains some first conclusions about the characteristic features of cases about drug-related closures, based on the statistical analysis. The results show, inter alia, the relation between the type of drugs and the judicial decision. Moreover, the results provide insight in the line of reasoning of the mayor, occupiers and judge with regard to the closure of a home.


Mr. dr. Michel Vols
Mr. dr. Michel Vols is universitair docent en onderzoeker binnen het Centrum voor Openbare Orde en Veiligheid, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Michelle Bruijn LLB
Michelle Bruijn LLB is onderzoeker binnen het Centrum voor Openbare Orde en Veiligheid, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Article (without peer review)

Access_open Nut en noodzaak van een algemene codificatie van bestuursrecht

Tijdschrift Netherlands Administrative Law Library, februari 2014
Auteurs Rolf Ortlep, Willemien den Ouden, Ymre dr. Schuurmans Ph.D. e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article on the usefulness of a general codification of administrative law forms the closing contribution of a NALL-special. In this special, various authors have reflected on the successfulness of a broad codification process in 1998, which introduced rules on the notification of decisions, policy rules, subsidies, enforcement and supervision of administrative authorities in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act (GALA). The editors asked the contributors whether the objectives of the rules introduced were met and how the rules turned out to function in practice. In this overarching article, the NALL-editors reflect on the general lessons to be learned for the GALA-legislator. In these lessons they also take into consideration the initiatives for a law of administrative procedure of the European Union.


Rolf Ortlep
Rolf Ortlep (UU), Willemien den Ouden en Ymre Schuurmans (beide UL), Albertjan Tollenaar en Gerrit van der Veen (beiden RUG) en Johan Wolswinkel (VU) vormen de NALL redactie. Zij bedanken redactiesecretaris Alke Metselaar (UL), zonder wie deze bijdrage en special niet in de huidige vorm zou hebben kunnen verschijnen.

Willemien den Ouden
NALL redactie

Ymre dr. Schuurmans Ph.D.
NALL redactie

Albertjan Tollenaar
NALL redactie

Gerrit van der Veen
NALL redactie

Johan Wolswinkel
NALL redactie

    In judicial review of decisions of administrative authorities courts generally aim towards grounding a judgment on substantively true facts. Such a substantive truth is usually understood as meaning ’that which happened’. But how can true facts be established if the facts have not yet occurred and what implications does this have for judicial review in administrative procedures? In this article this question will be analysed by taking the Dutch Administrative Court’s review of merger decisions of the Dutch Competition Authority - using a substantively close copy of the European merger control assessment framework - as subject of analysis. Judicial review of the substantive assessment in merger control, including the prospective analysis involved and taking into account complexities of economic evidence, will be analyzed and set against the general aim of establishing substantive truth of facts.


Anna Dr. Gerbrandy Ph.D.
Dr. Anna Gerbrandy is associate professor in Public Economic Law at the Europa Institute, Utrecht University.

    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 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.

    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 article examines the impact of the introduction of the Schutznorm-principle (relativiteitsvereiste) in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act on the private enforcement of state aid law. This principle prohibits the administrative courts to annul a decision if the ground manifestly does not protect the complainants interests. Court decisions are examined to research the role of individuals in the private enforcement of state aid law. These individuals often have no competitive relation with the (alleged) beneficiary of the aid. However, presumably the Schutznorm-principle will not hinder them from annulling the decision because the Schutznorm-principle requires clarity regarding the scope of the provision invoked. Article 108 TFEU lacks this clarity. Based on possibilities of appeal against Commissions decisions and case law of the EU CoJ on this matter, the author argues that not every individual needs to be able to invoke state aid provisions.


Matthijs Baart
Matthijs Baart LLM is onderzoek- en onderwijsmedewerker aan de Universiteit Leiden

    In its Betfair judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that the exclusive license system with respect to games of chance under Dutch law breaches Article 49 of the EC, now: Article 56 of the TFEU, concerning the free movement of services, and in particular the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency. This article addresses the lessons which can be drawn from this judgement and which Dutch legal concepts could be applied to this 'European' obligation of transparency. According to the judgement, this is not only the case for 'public contracts'and 'concessions', but also to licenses under public law. This article addresses the meaning of these legal concepts and discusses to what extent this 'European' obligation of transparency applies to the relevant Dutch legal concepts.


Annemarie Drahmann
Annemarie Drahmann is promovenda aan de afdeling staats- en bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Leiden en senior Professional Support Lawyer bij Stibbe.

    The central issue of this article is which European requirements apply when European and national authorities divide European grants among the applicants. Mostly, the European money which is available for awarding European grants is scarce. In this article, two questions come up for discussion. First: which distribution system has to be chosen? Second: to what extent the principles of equal treatment and transparancy – derived from the European procurement rules – are applicable to the distribution of European grants? This article will conclude that there is a difference between European grants awarded by the European Commission, European agencies and the so-called national agencies on the one hand, and European grants awarded by national authorities on the other.


Jacobine van den Brink
Jacobine van den Brink promoveert later dit jaar met het proefschrift ‘De uitvoering van Europese subsidieregelingen Nederland’ en is werkzaam als onderzoeker bij de Universiteit Leiden.

    The case law of the Court of Justice on revoking a national final administrative decision or judgement which is not compliant with EU law can illustrate the existing tension between the principle of primacy on the one hand, and the principle of national procedural autonomy on the other. Although the Court’s choice for one of the two principles as a starting point for solving a collision between EU law and national law may seem arbitrary at first glance, a system may be possible to a certain extent. This study discusses this system, hoping to provide a possible model of explanation which may be applicable to future case law.


Rolf Ortlep
R. Ortlep is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en verbonden aan het Instituut voor Staats- en Bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht.  M.J.M. Verhoeven is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en RAIO bij de Rechtbank Arnhem.

Maartje Verhoeven
M.J.M. Verhoeven is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en RAIO bij de Rechtbank Arnhem.
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.