Search Results

One of the European Charter of Local Self-Government’s principal distinguishing features is the process of monitoring of state performance under the Charter by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. This chapter discusses the institutions and procedures of that monitoring process (including the preparation of formal monitoring reports and recommendations), as well as the treatment of the Charter by the domestic courts of member states (whether in the monist or dualist tradition).

An important question in relation to the European Charter of Local Self-Government is how to measure the treaty’s actual impact on the law and practice of local government in Europe. This chapter offers a response, distinguishing principally between that group of states (broadly in Western Europe and including the United Kingdom) which became signatories to the Charter from 1985 and, on the other hand, those states of Central and Eastern Europe who undertook major political and constitutional transformations from the early 1990s and came late to the Council of Europe and the Charter. The Charter became an important dimension in applications for membership of the European Union.

This chapter provides a textual analysis of the European Charter of Local Self-Government’s provisions, article by article and includes the Charter’s complete text and of its Explanatory Report, along with discussion of how each article has been further interpreted in the subsequent process of monitoring by the Council of Europe. The chapter also includes discussion of the Charter’s one Additional Protocol (2009) (on public participation).

The impact of the European Charter of Local Self-Government can also be assessed by reference to its attributes as a remarkable treaty in its own right, especially its enforcement mechanisms discussed in chapter 4; its influence on steps taken to seek to guarantee regional autonomy (as opposed to local autonomy); and its influence on other “local charters” worldwide.

This chapter provides an introduction to the European Charter of Local Self-Government (its purpose and content), the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, and to the book’s contents as a whole.

The chapter explores the history of the European Charter of Local Self-Government’s emergence as a Council of Europe treaty. It includes discussion of Seelisberg Declaration (1950) and the (Versailles) European Charter of Municipalities (1953).

The monitoring procedures (including, in particular, the resulting reports and recommendations) discussed in chapter 4 have produced a rich ‘jurisprudence’ which, along with that produced by judicial interpretation, is discussed in chapter 5. A particular focus is on what is identified as a tendency for the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to ‘overreach’ by extending their monitoring beyond the scope of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, as more strictly defined.

This final chapter traces the European Charter of Local Self-Government’s trajectory over its thirty years. It was born in times of post-War European enthusiasm for co-operation between states; benefited greatly from its relevance to the post-1989 transformation of Central and Eastern Europe and to the process of admission to European Union membership; but now faces a more uncertain future (along with the Council of Europe) in the newer configuration of Europe and increasing stresses and strains between states.

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 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 general principles of good administration on the Slovenian legal system. It presents the main finding that Slovenian (general) administrative law is more or less in line with these principles. It furthermore discusses several Slovenian legislative acts that have been adopted with explicit reference to these principles as well as other pathways of reception in this legal system. At the same time the chapter makes it clear that the overall impact of the said principles has been moderate and that more could and should be done to spread knowledge about them throughout the whole system of the Slovenian judiciary and public bodies.

This chapter is dedicated to exploring the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on French administrative law. The chapter discloses that, despite the involvement of France in the functioning and work of the Council of Europe (CoE), reception of the said principles remains selective in the country. This may be attributed to the fact that French administrative law is a relatively old and deeply rooted system, and numerous laws were already adopted when the CoE started paying attention to certain issues. However, a certain but very indirect influence can be discerned with regard to the codification of individuals’ rights in administrative procedure and the discussion of local self-government. Sometimes the influence of the CoE is perceived as too disruptive for national administrative law. The chapter concludes that it remains mostly for the administrative judge to facilitate the reception of the pan-European principles of good administration.

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 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 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.

This chapter discusses the impact on Czech administrative law of the pan-European principles of good administration developed by the Council of Europe (CoE). It argues that the work of the CoE in the realm of administrative law has enjoyed a limited impact on Czech administrative law. This can be attributed to the fact that Czechia did not take part in the drafting of CoE standards as well as the EU’s influence, which is gaining more and more importance, among other things. The chapter concludes that despite this rather limited effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration in Czech administrative law, this does not mean that they are useless for Czechia as a country in transition endangered by a relapse into illiberalism and authoritarianism. On the contrary, they may serve as a firewall against any eventual deterioration of the national framework.

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 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.

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.