Developing Administrative Principles in the EU: A Foundational Model of Legitimacy?

This paper argues that administrative legitimacy has been neglected as having the potential to provide a foundation for the legitimacy of the EU institutions. The development of the administrative law‐type mechanisms within the EU is almost exclusively focused on the activities of the Member States as the main implementers of Union law. This has left an administrative gap at the level of the EU institutions, with little evidence of determinative horizontal administrative principles to be found in either the Treaties or the case‐law of two European courts. Where the courts have acted, they have adopted a sectoral and highly circumscribed approach to the development of administrative norms. The paper examines whether administrative principles can be harnessed as a mechanism for increasing the EU's legitimacy and, if so, how these principles fit with the institutions' approach to the legitimacy question. Post Lisbon, can evidence be found within the Treaties that the administrative route to legitimacy has not been entirely foreclosed? This paper proposes a model of administrative legitimacy for the EU level of administration that provides a foundation for the interconnected concepts of good governance and political legitimacy.     

Codification of Administrative Law: The US and the Union

Abstract: The US Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 was engendered by partisan political conflicts. Initially judicial review of administrative rule-making under the act was extremely deferent. In the course of the 1960s and 1970s the federal courts, basing themselves upon the unchanged language of the statute, created a new body of administrative law characterised by very great demands on the agencies and very intrusive judicial review. This transformation was fuelled by partisan realignments, fear of technocracy and desire for greater transparency and popular participation in government decision-making. Because these same forces are now active in relation to the Union, it may be anticipated that similar tendencies toward a demanding procedural law of rule-making and high levels of judicial review will be felt as Union administrative law develops.     

行政立法司法审查之成因

在我国,法院在行政诉讼中对于作为行政行为依据的行政立法不具有审查权,而其他国家则毫无例外地将这种审查权赋予了法院。法院在诉讼中之所以必须审查行政立法,不仅是由于议会审查和行政审查存在着缺陷,而且也是由于司法权的特点决定的。法院的这种审查权是行政诉讼制度发挥功能的必要条件,没有这种审查权,法院对具体行政行为的合法性审查就无法落实。     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Legal Pluralism and the Adjudication of Internet Disputes

No single entity-academic, corporate, governmental or non-profit-administers the Internet. (American Civil Liberties Union v Reno \[E.D. Pa. 1996] 929 F. Supp. 824, 832) The problems of regulation on the Internet are simply stated. First, it allows novel activities: e-mail, electronic discussion groups, simple transfer or viewing of text, images, sound and video. These activities may fall foul of laws of obscenity or defamation in some or all of the jurisdictions in which it is available. Second, the Internet is a distributed system that straddles geographical and jurisdictional boundaries; the regulation of such activities is likely to fall within two or more national 'legal' jurisdictions. It may therefore be difficult to choose an appropriate jurisdiction. Third, the inevitable need to choose a jurisdiction will mean that the values to be imposed upon the dispute will be the values of that jurisdiction, values that may be different from the values of those involved in the dispute. Much has been written on the first two problems and significant developments have been made in the formulation of principles to be applied to the problem of choosing a jurisdiction. In this paper, I will begin to focus on the third problem, the problem of inappropriate values being imposed upon Internet behaviour. The paper will develop the theme that the need for a single jurisdiction and, in consequence, the need for a single set of values to be imposed upon Internet activities is a fiction born out of centralist systems of western jurisprudence. The paper will review how courts have turned against pluralistic approaches in the past when dealing with clashes in cultural and religious values, particularly the clash in the English courts in the case of Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'. Western courts have been dismissive of cultural and religious claims either treating them as 'repugnant' or contrary to public policy, or else questioning the validity of the motives of the applicants. It is evident from recent cases in the US, that judges will use similar techniques to impose their own value values upon Internet activity. The concept of legal pluralism is not recognised within westernised systems of law. The paper will then consider whether a more pluralistic strategy would provide a more satisfactory approach to dealing with such disputes on the Internet: an approach that would enable the resolution of the conflict between different cultural and religious values.     

MOBILIZING FRIENDS AND FOES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

A common justification for the use of trial-type procedures in administrative agency decisionmaking is the assertion that such procedures will help legitimize decisions or increase their acceptability. Writers who take this position often assume that members of affected interest groups have fixed attitudes toward decisionmaking procedures, that such attitudes are highly salient, and that perceptions of procedural acceptability will not be greatly influenced by the social setting. This article reports on the results of a survey administered to witnesses in federal agency rulemaking proceedings which indicate that procedural attitudes have low salience, are mobilizable rather than fixed, and are strongly influenced by the activities of intermediary organizations such as trade associations and public interest groups. These findings imply particular strategies for designing and implementing regulatory procedures.     

BUILDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AS A GOAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFORM

With rapid social and economic development, nowadays there are an increasing number of social conflicts, especially administrative disputes between the government and individual citizens. However, many of the conflicts cannot be effectively solved through administrative litigation, which continuously leads to a high rate of appeals and complaints, making it ever more difficult to resolve administrative disputes. Often susceptible to interference from local party committees and governments, courts face difficulties to accept complaints, conduct trials, make decisions and enforce judgments, which make courts dysfunctional in supervising administrative organs. All the issues above are caused by problems in the court administration system. The control of the court’s personnel, expenses and property is decentralized, with courts divided by administrative regions, income provided through local finance and personnel controlled by local party committees. However, administrative organs are defendants in administrative litigations and courts are to review the legality of administrative acts. It is neither realistic nor logical to have courts in the de facto control of local governments to supervise the governments. Therefore, it is of necessity to build a vertical administrative court system subordinated to the Supreme People’s Court. This vertical system shall free courts from the control of local governments, overcome localization of the judiciary, and would be able to effectively solve administrative conflicts and ensure that government decisions/orders are smoothly carried out.     

我国行政诉讼全面审查制度再思考——法院对行政机关认定事实的态度分析

我国人民法院对行政机关认定事实采取怀疑或否定态度,对行政机关认定事实实行全面审查。英美法系国家法院对行政机关的事实认定采取尊重态度,对事实问题采用宽松的审查标准。大陆法系国家行政诉讼一般不区分事实问题和法律问题,都进行全面审查。我国应当重新思考人民法院的全面审查制度,对专业性和技术性强的行政案件,以及行政机关适用简易程序当场作出决定的案件,人民法院应当尊重行政机关对事实的认定。对一般案件事实,如果法律规定以具备某种性质为要件时,审查行政机关对事实性质的判断是否符合法律的规定。对于重大的或对当事人利益有重大影响的行政案件,进行全面审查。     

再论不确定法律概念之司法审查———立足于第103号行政审判指导案例的考察简

不确定法律概念往往成为行政诉讼争议的焦点.实践中,法院消极审查可能导致行政诉讼目的难以实现,积极审查又可能干涉行政权的行使.然而,国内学者的观点——不确定法律概念可分为经验概念和价值概念,对于经验概念,法院可以进行严格审查;对于价值概念,法院应给予高度的尊重——在司法权与行政权地位明显失衡的现状下以及在实现行政诉讼目的和司法最终裁决原则的要求下,已经明显“站不住脚”了.本文通过对第103号行政审判指导案例的分析,认为应确立对所有不确定法律概念都可进行司法审查的原则,在此前提下依据对不确定法律概念进行的重新分类再确定相应的司法审查程度和司法审查标准.     

“法律普遍原则”的司法适用——以欧洲行政法为视角

考虑欧洲联盟的司法审查机制,主要涉及到两个层次的问题。首先,司法审查可以依靠什么法律依据——更明确地说,行政行为的司法审查运用什么法律基本原则?其次,司法审查应该采取什么标准、严格到什么程度?欧洲经验表明,这些问题的妥善处理对于共同体法治的建构是至关重要的。     

Private Damages Actions Under EU Competition Policy: An Exploration of the Ongoing Sea Change in Respect of Such Actions Concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU Infringements

The EU has an established history of public enforcement concerning antitrust infringements under what are now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Yet, until recently, this has not been true in respect of private compensatory damages actions in relation to the said articles. Hence, these actions are now seen as reinforcing the existing deterrent provided by pubic enforcement fines. This paper focuses upon the ongoing sea change that aims to enable and encourage compensatory damages claims in relation to harm caused by breaches of 101 and 102 TFEU. It reveals that both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission have played pioneering roles in advancing this sea change. It further asserts that, although the rulings of the CJEU have created a hybrid architecture that makes possible private actions in relation to the said breaches under Member state procedural laws before national courts, the architecture itself is problematic as it fails to guarantee that Member states’ procedural rules have a high degree of uniformity, thereby failing to guarantee a regulatory level playing field across the Union concerning the said damages actions. Moreover, not only is the architecture problematic, but it needed further development in respect of rules and requirements in several key areas, such as the right of evidential disclosure, the limitation period issue, collective redress and the quantification of harm, so as to facilitate and encourage claims. The Commission was aware of these concerns, and this paper explores its response. The issues could have been addressed by the establishment of a set of EU procedural rules which national courts would apply in the said actions but the Commission decided upon a different way forward. Working with the said hybrid architecture, and through the vehicle of the 2014 Directive on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, the Commission has amended and created rules and requirements which will form part of Member states’ domestic procedural law—and therefore will be applied by national courts—in order to establish a more level regulatory playing field across the Union which should facilitate and encourage private compensatory damages actions for harm caused by EU antitrust breaches. Of course, a more level playing field means that differences will still remain. Moreover, it will be some time before the success of the Directive can be gauged, and further measures may be required in the future.     

Unveiling a role for the EU? The ‘headscarf controversy’ in European schools

Many European countries have introduced laws and policies which proscribe religious clothing in public educational institutions. The European Convention on Human Rights has been deployed to uphold such actions, the European Court of Human Rights recognising that States should be able to limit the manifestation of religious beliefs. National courts considering the matter in terms of religious freedom (as opposed to discrimination) have reached similar conclusions. Most affected States are members of the European Union as well as the Council of Europe. This article will argue that it is more likely that European Union law could be engaged by an aggrieved teacher to challenge national law.     

论可诉性是行政行为的本质属性

可诉性是指法律行为的可诉性,行政行为的可诉性是指行政主体作出的行政行为在一定条件下可诉诸法院司法审查的一种本质属性,这是判断行政行为的一个根本标准;过去,我国学界对行政行为特性的认识却忽视了这一点。可诉性是贯穿于行政行为与行政诉讼的一条红线,它使公民行政诉权的行使与法院对行政权的司法审查成为可能,具有普遍适用性。     

行政立法不作为研究

所谓行政立法不作为,是指特定行政立法机关未依照上位法的规定,未尽到合理的立法责任,在合适时间以合适的方式或者程序,展开立法创制、修订或废止活动的行为。行政立法不作为危及了公民、法人或者其他组织的权益以及社会公共利益,行政立法机关因此应该承担相应的法律责任。在控制行政立法不作为上,应该强化授权行政立法规则的完善以及妥当地处理好立法裁量权的使用,并加强行政自制、各级人民代表大会常务委员会和社会公众对立法不作为的监督。     

深化改革背景下对司法行政化的遏制

司法行政化,即以行政的目的、构造、方法、机理及效果取代司法自身的内容,形成以行政方式操作的司法。法院司法运作的全过程均带有行政化色彩,表现为司法目的和价值的行政化、案件审判活动的行政化、上下级法院关系的行政化、司法人事制度和法院结构的行政化以及审判管理的行政化等。在给定的约束条件下,司法行政化可以弥补一线司法能力之不足,可以抗制外部干预。但其过度发展会妨碍依法治国,损害办案质量与效率,危及司法权威和公信力,阻碍法院工作的可持续发展。司法行政化的根源在于基本权力结构及其运行机制;司法功能设定的非司法化和资源配置的有限性,统一的人事管理制度和财政供应制度以及国家机能分化不足,亦为重要原因。遏制司法行政化需强化法院的司法审查功能、审判功能以及终局性纠纷解决功能;需阻隔行政性要素介入审判,建立审判独立的"二元模式";需在法院审判管理、司法行政管理、上下级法院业务管理上"去行政化"。     

European Agencies' Rulemaking: Powers,Procedures and Assessment

This article aims at identifying European agencies' rulemaking powers, mapping the procedures through which such powers are exercised and assessing the existing procedural arrangements. The first section analyses the main forms of European agencies' rulemaking. It shows, on the one hand, that not all European agencies are actually engaged in the adoption of administrative rules, on the other hand, that European agencies carrying out rulemaking activities tend to converge on two specific forms of rulemaking, namely participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules and regulation by soft law. The second section, devoted to mapping the procedures through which rulemaking powers are exercised, argues that the two main types of European agencies' rulemaking cannot be said to be subject to a really common procedural framework. In both cases, the emerging procedural rules implement the same principles of transparency and participation and rely on the same consultation mechanism, sometimes complemented by regulatory impact assessment. Yet, proceduralisation has an uneven development: while the establishment of a procedural discipline is quite common with reference to participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules, regulation by soft law remains largely under‐proceduralised. The last section proposes an assessment of the European agencies' rulemaking procedures. Two main shortcomings are identified: the asymmetry between the tendency to proceduralise the adoption of binding implementing rules and the parallel tendency to keep informal the process of adoption of soft law measures; and the too rudimental development of consultation.     

论德国行政诉讼中司法权的边界

德国行政诉讼中法院的受案范围几乎不受限制。行政法院对行政案件有完全的管辖权,可以主动、全面、深入地审查事实问题与法律问题,一般无须尊重行政机关在事实判断方面的专业知识与经验。不过,自上个世纪70年代以来,由于行政判断余地等理论的发展,行政法院对行政主体进行强势监督与制约的格局有所松动。另外,行政法院在判决与执行中恪守权力分立原则。德国行政诉讼中这一权力边界格局的形成,是与其宪政体制、法院分工、法定法官原则、二战后对公民权利的重视以及发达的公法理论等紧密相关的。     

United States Supreme Court rules against Medicare providers in cost reimbursement case. Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital

In the long run, the impact of Guernsey will depend on the interpretation and application of the decision by HCFA, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, and the courts. If HCFA interprets the decision as a signal that the Supreme Court is willing to grant federal agencies broad latitude to avoid the rulemaking requirements of the APA, providers may have fewer opportunities for formal input into payment policy issues under the Medicare program. The impact of the case may well go beyond cost-based reimbursement issues and affect all aspects of the Medicare program.     

Judicial Power in Russia: Through the Prism of Administrative Justice

This article assesses the power of judges in Russia (on courts of general jurisdiction, arbitrazh courts, and military courts) in dealing with cases in which the government or one of its officials is a party. Power, that is, the resources of judges to make binding decisions, is understood as including jurisdiction, discretion, and authority to ensure compliance. The article analyzes the dramatic growth of jurisdiction and caseload in administrative justice in post-Soviet Russia to the year 2002 and examines how the courts have performed in handling the review of actions by officials (including in the military), tax cases, electoral disputes, and the legality of normative acts (both regulations and laws of lower governments), especially in the late 1990s. High rates of success for persons bringing suits against the government suggest that judges were able by and large to adjudicate fairly and rule against the state. To a considerable degree (but not always), those decisions were implemented (more often than were constitutional and commercial decisions). Interestingly, citizens who challenged the actions of officials in court had much more success than those who brought complaints to the Procuracy. Finally, the article develops an agenda for future research that would deepen understanding of the significance of administrative justice in the Russian Federation and the power of judges.     

Coercion, Cooperation, and Control: Understanding the Policy Impact of Administrative Courts and the Ombudsman in the Netherlands

This article examines the way in which administrative courts and the National Ombudsman in the Netherlands seek to control administrative action, and is aimed at developing a heuristic model that can also be useful in a wider context. Two styles of control will be introduced: "coercive" and "cooperative." An exploratory empirical study was conducted of two administrative agencies, investigating the implementation process of court and ombudsman decisions. This article argues that it is likely that the policy impact of the courts and the ombudsman is directly related to their style of control. More empirical research is needed to evaluate this hypothesis.