Search Results

This chapter examines the sources of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It maps the degree of concretization these principles have reached, and how far they have spread concerning the classical and modern topics of administrative law. It scrutinizes the Statute of the CoE, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the (relevant) case law of the European Court of Human Rights, other CoE conventions (such as the CoE Convention on Data Protection, the Convention on Access to Official Documents, and the European Charter of Local Self Government), and the recommendations and other soft law on good administration of the Committee of Ministers and other institutions of the CoE. The chapter concludes that the principles deriving from these sources should not be considered as a loose bundle of various rules in administrative matters but instead form a ‘coherent whole’.

This chapter discusses the influence of the pan-European principles of good administration in the Hungarian legal system. It discloses that while the impact and role of these pan-European principles, in particular that of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, are growing in Hungarian legislation and jurisprudence, clear traces of them are still difficult to discern. It also finds that, despite some influence stemming from the Council of Europe (CoE) in the codification concepts underlying recent procedural reforms, the full potential to that effect is far from being realized. In particular, reliance on soft law instruments of the CoE remains problematic, in part due to legal formalism inherited from the country’s socialist past.

This chapter explores the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on the legal system of the United Kingdom. The chapter reveals that whilst the European Convention on Human Rights, and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, have deeply impacted on domestic administrative law, the same cannot be said regarding other sources of the pan-European general principles of good administration. Furthermore, the chapter claims that the UK, as a founder member of the Council of Europe (CoE), sees itself as continuing to provide a degree of critical oversight of the CoE’s system. There is both political and legal resistance to the idea that international norms, such as those developed by the CoE, could provide a template for elements of the domestic legal order. However, the chapter concludes that in a post-Brexit UK the pan-European general principles of good administration may well take on increased significance.

This chapter discusses the impact of the pan-European general principles of good administration in Lithuania. It shows that there is a general openness to incorporating these principles into the Lithuanian legal system, albeit not without limitations. This can be attributed to three major factors—legitimacy, a favourable legal framework and agency given to these principles by the domestic actors. Especially, administrative courts seem to be progressively facilitating their application. Yet, while in certain domains the said principles have permeated the Lithuanian legal system to a remarkable extent, in others their use seems to be somewhat underutilized, be it because of domestic regulatory sufficiency, EU influence or unwillingness to make use of these principles by adopting ‘softer’ legal instruments such as codes of conduct or administrative self-commitments.

Even though the Netherlands was one of the founding fathers of the CoE, the impact of CoE conventions and soft law on Dutch administrative law and the development of the principles of good administration is rather patchy and uneven. This ‘Dutch paradox’ can be explained by the much more significant and direct impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on both substantive and procedural national administrative law. At least partly, this impact can be explained by the existence of a coherent body of ECtHR case law that is relevant to almost all areas of administrative law and that can be readily and easily applied on the national level. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that it might be useful for Dutch authorities to keep an eye on other CoE instruments that may be relevant for the development of general administrative law, especially because the ECHR provides for minimum protection only.

This chapter discusses the impact on Belgian administrative law of the pan-European principles of good administration from the Council of Europe (CoE). Although the Belgian legal order is rather receptive to European law the specific direct impact of the CoE on good administration is limited, with the exception of the constitutional provision enacting administrative transparency. This situation is due to three factors. First, Belgian administrative law first and foremost borrows concepts from its neighbours, France and the Netherlands. Secondly, the CoE´s influence is most often mediated by technical devices, such as the constitutional provisions relating to equality. Finally, some principles of good administration, such as linguistic rights, are politically sensitive, which highlights the formal limitation of the CoE’s influence on Belgian principles of good administration. Overall, the CoE acts as a ‘high magistrature’ influencing administrative, legislative and political actors, as long as these broadly agree with the CoE’s principles.

This chapter explores the influence on Polish administrative law of pan-European principles of good administration stemming from the Council of Europe (CoE). It reveals that membership of the CoE can be perceived as an element of the democratization process that has had a direct influence on Poland, especially through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It furthermore establishes that Polish administrative law generally follows the CoE standards even if at the same time they are overshadowed by the standards flowing from the EU. In addition, the unwillingness of the Polish courts to refer to non-binding CoE standards of conduct which are not strongly founded in statutory law is another obstacle precluding full reception of the said principles.

This chapter discusses the approach used in this book to assess the effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration in harmonizing the domestic administrative law of the Member States of the Council of Europe with regard to the ‘limiting function’ of administrative law. It explains the criteria justifying the choice of the twenty-eight Member States included in the research and the exclusion of the others. It gives reasons why the research is not extended to the impact of these principles on the (supranational) legal order of the European Union. Finally, it explains the methods used by the national experts to assess the impact and effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration in their respective legal orders, i.e. the so-called paths of reception, namely through national legislation, through administrative self-commitments, and through national case law referring to and directly applying these principles as standards of review.

This chapter discusses the impact on Spanish administrative law of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It reveals the prominent role of the CoE in Spain’s transition to democracy after Franco’s death on 20 November 1975. Today, while there is generally no conceptual mismatch between Spanish administrative law and the said principles, their impact is fragmentary and sector-based, rather than comprehensive and systematic. Whereas in areas such as local self-government this impact appears to be high, elsewhere it has been either overshadowed by EU law or the already existing comprehensive domestic legal framework and, hence, very indirect.

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on the Albanian legal system of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It argues that the CoE has been engaged in almost every area of law reform and been present in monitoring elections and constitutional referendums, delivering programmes and training, offering assistance with law-making (including the Constitution and codes), supporting justice reform and advising government authorities. Especially, the European Convention on Human Rights is held in high esteem in Albania even if its application is often curtailed by language and access barriers. The chapter concludes that in order to reach full compliance with the said principles Albania still has to go through significant reforms, including the justice reform that has been ongoing in the country for the last five years with very slow progress.

This chapter canvasses the impact on the administrative law of Bulgaria of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE) in the aftermath of socialism and in the shadow of EU integration. It zeroes in on each of the three channels of CoE influence—the direct effects of the CoE conventions ratified by Bulgaria, the indirect introduction of pan-European principles by the national legislator, and through application of the European Convention on Human Rights. It finds that the influence of all these channels has been limited although some progress has been made. Finally, it places the quest for pan-European principles and good administration in the context of Bulgarian legal culture and argues that the formalist character of the latter is a serious impediment to the actual effect that any legal principles (as opposed to rules) may have in the country.

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact on Swiss administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter claims that the standards stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have been adopted in an exemplary way by Swiss authorities. The influence was especially strong in the 1980s and 1990s. The same cannot be said regarding other documents of the CoE, whose impact remains disparate because many aspects of the pan-European general principles of good administration were already part of the national written law. The chapter concludes that despite the exemplary integration of CoE instruments heated debates on the content of these instruments are not excluded from Switzerland.

This chapter explores the impact on Austrian administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). It reveals that the standards of individual protection stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights have greatly influenced the system of administrative justice in Austria. The impact of other CoE sources, especially various recommendations on administrative law, remains rather limited due to their high tension with the (constitutional) principle of legality. The chapter concludes that a widening gap in the relationship between the CoE and Austria can be discerned, partially because of the changing priorities of the latter and the ever-growing influence of the European Union.

In this chapter the meaning and effect in the Finnish legal system of the Council of Europe (CoE) conventions and recommendations are discussed. Particular emphasis is placed on the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights and CoE law pertinent to good administration, administrative law and administrative law principles. The main finding is that, so far, the CoE provisions on good administration have found little room for application due to refined domestic legislation on these matters. Instead of being a follower Finland has been setting the pace in making good administration a central concept and normative requirement in constitutional and administrative law. Thus, although a two-way interconnection between the CoE and Finland can be detected, it could be argued that Finland represents a benchmark case. This development coincides with—and is partially affected by—the general ‘pandemic’ of good governance talk and enthusiasm over the last couple of decades.

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on Serbian administrative law. It shows that the main (and almost exclusive) path for reception of these principles in Serbia has been through legislation, including the ‘core’ domains of administrative law. This chapter furthermore reveals that the Serbian legal system only rarely relies on alternatives to legislative enactment such as direct application of ratified international agreements or development of standards through judicial and administrative case law. It identifies that the reasons for this are the language barrier, the lack of online dissemination of the relevant Council of Europe materials, and the prevailing ‘formalistic’ attitude—to name but a few.

This chapter explores the impact of the pan-European general principles on Swedish administrative law. The chapter claims that the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have had a great impact on important sectors thereof, such as areas connected to the right of access to courts, procedural safeguarding of administrative sanctions, and state liability. At the same time other standards of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe seem to slip under the radar in the Swedish legal system and are not usually relied on by Swedish administrative courts or the Swedish ombudsman. An explanation for this lack of reliance may lie in the fact that Swedish law already has long-standing traditions with well-defined concepts and procedures in this field.

This chapter discusses the impact of the pan-European general principles of good administration on the Croatian legal system. It discloses that such an impact is especially discernible in the field of administrative proceedings as Croatia had to reform the system thereof in order to stay in line with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it goes on to reveal that the case law of the Croatian administrative courts shows that, to a certain extent, a lack of knowledge of the said principles persists. This can be attributed to the cases of overly formalistic applications of law stemming from a deep-rooted legacy of ‘passive’ administration that calls for change.

This chapter discusses the impact of the pan-European general principles of good administration on Armenian administrative law. The chapter claims that successful reform of Armenian public administration is an indispensable prerequisite for successful implementation of these principles but that there is still a long way to go. Besides this, the Armenian legal order is generally open to being shaped and influenced by the said principles and demonstrates numerous successful examples thereof. Nevertheless, the chapter highlights that usually the Armenian legislator is the only one to transfer these principles into Armenian law. It describes the reception of the pan-European general principles of good administration as still being under development in Armenia. The chapter concludes that in order to guarantee the full extent of ‘good administration’ it remains necessary that general reforming of Armenian public administration be successfully implemented.

This chapter discusses the impact on Estonian administrative law of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It argues that there is no conceptual mismatch between Estonian law and the administrative law of the CoE. This is attested by the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights was one of the main models for the constitutional rights chapter of the Estonian Constitution and remains widely discussed in the case law of Estonian courts. Moreover, the laws on the general part of Estonian administrative law—the Administrative Procedure Act and State Liability Act of 2001—among other things, have been guided by the pan-European principles of good administration. At the same time the chapter expresses doubts regarding the significance of the soft law sources of the CoE because of the principle of legality prevalent in Estonian law, which presents a hindrance to their permeation.