Atnaujinkite slapukų nuostatas

El. knyga: Judge and the Proportionate Use of Discretion: A Comparative Administrative Law Study

4.00/5 (2 ratings by Goodreads)
Edited by , Edited by
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
Judge and the Proportionate Use of Discretion: A Comparative Administrative Law StudyDidesnis paveikslėlis
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:

DRM apribojimai

  • Kopijuoti:

    neleidžiama

  • Spausdinti:

    neleidžiama

  • El. knygos naudojimas:

    Skaitmeninių teisių valdymas (DRM)
    Leidykla pateikė šią knygą šifruota forma, o tai reiškia, kad norint ją atrakinti ir perskaityti reikia įdiegti nemokamą programinę įrangą. Norint skaityti šią el. knygą, turite susikurti Adobe ID . Daugiau informacijos  čia. El. knygą galima atsisiųsti į 6 įrenginius (vienas vartotojas su tuo pačiu Adobe ID).

    Reikalinga programinė įranga
    Norint skaityti šią el. knygą mobiliajame įrenginyje (telefone ar planšetiniame kompiuteryje), turite įdiegti šią nemokamą programėlę: PocketBook Reader (iOS / Android)

    Norint skaityti šią el. knygą asmeniniame arba „Mac“ kompiuteryje, Jums reikalinga  Adobe Digital Editions “ (tai nemokama programa, specialiai sukurta el. knygoms. Tai nėra tas pats, kas „Adobe Reader“, kurią tikriausiai jau turite savo kompiuteryje.)

    Negalite skaityti šios el. knygos naudodami „Amazon Kindle“.

This book examines different legal systems and analyses how the judge in each of them performs a meaningful review of the proportional use of discretionary powers by public bodies.

Although the proportionality test is not equally deep-rooted in the literature and case-law of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this principle has assumed an increasing importance partly due to the influence of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. In the United States, different standards of judicial review are applied to review arbitrary and capricious agency discretion. However, do US judges achieve a similar result to the proportionality or reasonableness test?

Drawing together a selection of key experts in the field, this book analyses the principle of proportionality in the judicial review of administrative decisions from different perspectives. The principle is first examined in the context of recent developments in the literature and case-law, including the inevitable EU influence, then light shall be shed on the meaning of this principle in the specific case-law of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the authors go on to explore the ways in which US judges consciously sanction the disproportionate and/or unreasonable use of agency discretion. In the legal systems where the proportionality test plays a very limited role, Ranchordįs and de Waard also try to clarify why this is the case and look at what alternative solutions have been found.

This book will be of great interest to scholars of public and administrative law, and EU law.
Acknowledgements xii
Table of figures and diagrams
xiii
Table of abbreviations
xiv
Notes on contributors xv
1 Proportionality crossing borders: why it is still difficult to recognise sparrows and cannons
1(12)
Sofia Ranchordas
Boudewijn De Waard
1.1 Introduction
1(3)
1.2 Proportionality in administrative law
4(1)
1.3 Proportionality: controversies and mysteries
5(1)
1.4 Comparing proportionality tests in administrative law
6(4)
1.4.1 Proportionality: a high-value product `made in Germany'
6(1)
1.4.2 Implicit-explicit proportionality: the French touch
7(1)
1.4.3 More to proportionality than Wednesbury in England?
7(2)
1.4.4 Proportionality in the Netherlands: Dutch sobriety
9(1)
1.4.5 Proportionality, human rights and the European project
9(1)
1.4.6 No need for proportionality: just take a hard look
10(1)
1.5 Conclusions
10(3)
2 The principle of proportionality in German administrative law
13(30)
Nikolaus Marsch
Vanessa Tunsmeyer
2.1 Introduction
13(2)
2.2 Judicial review of administrative action in Germany
15(7)
2.2.1 Effective judicial review of administrative action as a constitutional obligation
15(2)
2.2.2 Proportionality as a boundary to legislative and administrative discretion
17(5)
2.3 Historical background and evolution
22(8)
2.3.1 Overview
22(1)
2.3.2 The eighteenth century
23(2)
2.3.3 The nineteenth century
25(2)
2.3.4 Academic discussion and development of the specific criteria
27(1)
2.3.5 Case law
27(1)
2.3.6 The first half of the twentieth century
28(1)
2.3.7 Since 1949: proportionality and the constitutionalisation of administrative law
29(1)
2.4 The proportionality test -- actual meaning and practice
30(6)
2.4.1 The four-step test and the varying intensity of control
30(4)
2.4.2 The German `export hit' and the European influence on German law
34(2)
2.5 The status quo and recent developments in the literature and case law
36(3)
2.5.1 A core element of German public law
36(1)
2.5.2 `Bound decisions' and the principle of proportionality
37(2)
2.6 Conclusion
39(4)
3 Proportionality in French administrative law
43(30)
Yoan Sanchez
3.1 Introduction
43(2)
3.2 History and overview of the use of the proportionality review by the Council of State
45(5)
3.2.1 An unacknowledged control
45(1)
3.2.2 Acknowledging the control
46(4)
3.3 Scope of the proportionality test
50(9)
3.3.1 The traditional field: the protection of rights and freedoms
50(2)
3.3.2 New areas: urban planning and disciplinary sanctions
52(4)
3.3.3 Disciplinary sanctions
56(3)
3.4 Proportionality test and modulation of the effects of annulment
59(2)
3.5 Intensity of the proportionality test
61(4)
3.5.1 The two degrees of the proportionality test
61(2)
3.5.2 Factors affecting the intensity of the proportionality test
63(2)
3.6 Interesting thoughts and food for thought on the proportionality test
65(8)
3.6.1 Thoughts on the control of proportionality
66(2)
3.6.2 The shortcomings of the literature on proportionality
68(1)
3.6.3 Food for thought and reflections on the proportionality test
69(4)
4 Proportionality in English Law
73(36)
A.C.L. Davies
J.R. Williams
4.1 Introduction
73(1)
4.2 Background
74(7)
4.2.1 Judicial review
74(1)
4.2.2 The Wednesbury test and its progeny
75(2)
4.2.3 The proportionality test
77(2)
4.2.4 The Wednesbury/proportionality split
79(2)
4.3 Proportionality and Wednesbury compared
81(14)
4.3.1 The problems with Wednesbury review
81(2)
4.3.2 The advantages of proportionality
83(12)
4.4 The incommensurability objection
95(2)
4.5 The application of proportionality and the deference debate
97(9)
4.5.1 Definition and application
97(6)
4.5.2 Deference as a doctrine?
103(3)
4.6 Conclusion
106(3)
5 Proportionality in Dutch administrative law
109(33)
Boudewijn De Waard
5.1 Introduction
109(1)
5.2 Towards a definition: a brief history of judicial review
109(13)
5.2.1 Control of administrative action in the first half of the twentieth century
109(5)
5.2.2 Introduction of the GALA in 1994
114(1)
5.2.3 Case law after the introduction of Article 3:4, Section 2, GALA
115(5)
5.2.4 Approach to proportionality in the literature
120(1)
5.2.5 Conclusion on the definition of proportionality
121(1)
5.3 Marginal control: a method of testing
122(2)
5.4 Interim conclusion
124(1)
5.5 Elements of proportionality permeating other legal principles
124(3)
5.5.1 Unreasonableness: ultimum remedium
127(1)
5.6 Margin of appreciation, discretion and judicial control
127(6)
5.6.1 Distinction between `margin of appreciation' and `discretion (in a narrow sense)'
127(3)
5.6.2 Leaving a margin of appreciation: within and beyond the separation of powers
130(3)
5.7 In what circumstances is the proportionality test used?
133(4)
5.7.1 The field of law: EU law or national law?
133(1)
5.7.2 The field of law: human rights?
134(1)
5.7.3 Control of regulation or of individual decisions?
135(2)
5.8 How is the test on arbitrariness applied?
137(2)
5.8.1 Does the intensity of review vary depending on the type of case?
137(1)
5.8.2 What factors make the judicial review more or less intense?
138(1)
5.8.3 The prohibition of arbitrariness in the case-law and the literature
138(1)
5.9 Conclusions
139(3)
6 The principle of proportionality in European law
142(18)
Catherine Haguenau-Moizard
Yoan Sanchez
6.1 Introduction
142(1)
6.2 The proportionality test in ECtHR case law
143(8)
6.2.1 The origins and diversity of expression of the proportionality test
143(3)
6.2.2 The application of the proportionality test
146(3)
6.2.3 The change in the intensity of the proportionality test
149(2)
6.3 The test of proportionality in ECJ case law
151(7)
6.3.1 Introduction
151(3)
6.3.2 The scope of the proportionality test
154(2)
6.3.3 The change in the intensity of the supervision of the Court
156(2)
6.4 Conclusion
158(2)
7 Agency discretion, judicial review and `proportionality' in US administrative law
160(31)
Jud Mathews
7.1 Introduction
160(2)
7.2 Judicial review in American administrative law: an overview
162(6)
7.2.1 The availability of review
162(3)
7.2.2 The scope of review
165(3)
7.3 Arbitrary and capricious review
168(15)
7.3.1 The advent of `hard look' review
169(2)
7.3.2 Hard look review in action: National Tire Dealers
171(3)
7.3.3 A hard look from the Supreme Court: State Farm
174(6)
7.3.4 The twilight of hard look? Fox Television
180(3)
7.4 Agency discretion and statutory interpretation
183(4)
7.4.1 A convergence of standards?
185(2)
7.5 Conclusion
187(4)
8 Concluding remarks
191(14)
Sofia Ranchordas
Boudewijn De Waard
8.1 Proportionality: indispensable criterion in administrative law
191(2)
8.1.1 A European proportionality?
192(1)
8.2 A `kind of proportionality' is needed
193(3)
8.2.1 Courts avoid taking over the role of the administration
194(2)
8.3 Proportionality in the narrow sense
196(4)
8.4 Proportionality, reasonableness and intensity of judicial control
200(1)
8.5 Margin of appreciation and deference
201(2)
8.6 Closing remarks
203(2)
Index 205
Sofia Ranchordįs is Assistant Professor of Administrative Law at Tilburg University.



Boudewijn de Waard is Professor of Administrative Law at Tilburg University.
Daugiau apie elektronines knygas Daugiau apie elektronines knygas
Pastovi nuoroda: https://www.kriso.lt/db/97813176061166e.html
Raktažodžiai: