Explores the English origins of the principles of judicial review in common law jurisdictions and autochthonous pressures for their adaptation.

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.

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 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 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 investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

With dynamic learning features and visual aids, the Inside Series helps you make the most of your study time, throughout the semester and as you prepare for the final. Unlike heavily abridged treatises, the Inside Series is carefully written in a concise, straightforward style that clearly identifies the essential components of the law and how they fit together. You can quickly learn what is important and why. Overviews and Tables of Contents in each chapter act as a roadmap to guide you through topics, showing you how each relates to the larger legal framework. FAQs clarify points of law and help you avoid common mistakes and misconceptions. Sidebars give fascinating additional detail from legal history, policy, famous cases and more. The graphic design supports your visual learning, and features such as bolded key terms, summaries, and Connections help reinforce your understanding while giving you ample opportunity for self-review. Surprisingly concise, visually compelling, the Inside Series is extremely useful throughout the semester to help you identify the essential components of the law and how they fit together. Comprehensive coverage of the essential topics emphasizes what you need to know and why. Clear, straightforward, informal writing explains every topic for you without over-simplifying the concepts. Overviews and Tables of Contents in each chapter act as a roadmap to guide you through topics, showing you why each matters and how it fits into the larger framework of the law. FAQs clarify points of law and help you avoid common mistakes and misconceptions. Sidebars enrich the text with fascinating detail from legal history, policy, famous cases and more. Bolded key terms, Connections and summaries reinforce your understanding and give you ample opportunity for self-review. The overall graphical design of the series supports your visual learning.

It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a 'righting' effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this 'righting' hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently 'formalist', 'legalist' and 'conservative' approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.