Search Results

This chapter examines the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Topics discussed include the influential effect of the charter and the right to good administration expressed in Article 41 of the Charter. It is argued that even if the Charter does not formally become part of EU constitutional law, as long as the Constitutional Treaty is not ratified it plays an influential and significant role in the building of a European corpus of law protecting fundamental rights. The Charter is referred to in the preambles of texts of secondary legislation and used as a document of reference by the various EC/EU institutions. The Charter, although not binding, influences the case law of European courts.

This chapter is dedicated to transversal analysis of the effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). First, it gives an overview of the differences and particularities of the national administrative law that come forth when looking at the effectiveness of these principles on the national level. It explains why they have different effects and work in different ways in different legal orders. Second, these different modes of operation of the principles are explained: to be effective on the national level they must be transposed, implemented and enforced. Thirdly, the chapter looks at the normative function of these principles on the level of the CoE. They concretize the ‘founding values’ of the CoE (Article 3 of its Statute) with regard to the administration of its Member States. The chapter finishes with an outlook on further desiderata of research.

The Introduction outlines the notion, the main features, the sources and the scope of the pan-European principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). It elaborates on their relationship to EU administrative law in describing the characteristics of EU administrative law and contrasts it with the characteristics of ‘CoE administrative law’. Moreover, the Introduction discusses the commonalities of the research on the pan-European general principles of good administration with the research on European human rights law and the quest for a ‘European rule of law’. It furthermore examines the general concepts of ‘good governance’ and ‘good administration’, the differences between them and the relevance of these notions for the research on pan-European principles of good administration. It finishes with a presentation of the effectiveness of pan-European principles of good administration as a main research question and the approach thereto taken in this book.

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 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 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 explores the impact of the pan-European general principles of good administration on the Latvian legal system. The chapter concludes that there is a conceptual match between the administrative law of Latvia and the pan-European general principles of good administration. This, among other things, is reflected by the fact that recommendations of the Council of Europe (CoE) were used as models for complementing the Latvian code of administrative procedure. It furthermore claims that general acceptance of the principle of good administration in the Latvian legal order in particular considerably facilitates reception of the CoE’s work in the realm of administrative law. At the same time the chapter highlights that implementation of the principles of good administration in Latvia could be improved and used in a more precise manner.

The term ‘human rights’ has different meanings and is used in many academic subjects. It is used by lawyers and politicians, by philosophers and theologians, and, more generally, by the public. The term is used to denote a broad spectrum of very diverse rights, ranging from the right to life to the right to a cultural identity. They involve all elementary preconditions for an existence worthy of human dignity. These rights are ordered and specified in different ways. Often a distinction is made between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social, and cultural rights on the other. Some also add collective rights as a third group. The first group is related to restricting the powers of the state in respect of the individual. The second group often requires governments to intervene actively to create good conditions for human development, such as employment, education, and healthcare. When we speak about the right to good governance we must distinguish between the right as such and the underlying norms which are part of the principles of good governance: properness, transparency, participation, effectiveness, and accountability. This means that the underlying norms of the right to good governance are also related to these five principles. The inclusion of human rights as one of these principles here is to make it more explicit that this is not only a subjective right for the citizens but also an obligation for the government. The right and the obligation are two sides of the same coin.

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 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.

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 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.

This chapter discusses the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on Italian administrative law. The chapter presents the main finding that the Italian legal system is generally in line with these principles. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has played a particularly strong role in national administrative law (especially in the context of administrative sanctioning and lengthy court proceedings). At the same time, some limitations to full reception of the said principles remain, the most notable of them being the resistance of constitutional jurisprudence to give ‘generalized’ execution to the pan-European principles and the low degree of recognition of the importance of the Council of Europe’s recommendations and conventions (other than the ECHR) for the development of these principles in national administrative law. The chapter concludes by stressing the (sometimes) contradictory nature of Italy’s acknowledgement of the pan-European scope of these principles.

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.

Chapter 6 shows how, in spite of the differences of the various domestic legal systems in Europe, a European model for public administration is emerging. This can be seen across different topics such as the scope of public action, the provision of services of general interest; but also in the way in which public administration is organized, in respect of matters such as, for example, economic governance, delegated management and public procurement, and independent authorities and agencies. The chapter sets out and analyses the principle of good administration and the role it plays in European public law, and then turns to the topic of the organization of the civil service in Europe, analysing the question both at the European and at the domestic level.

This chapter discusses the impact on German administrative law of the pan-European general principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). The chapter highlights that most of the German core statutes on administrative law had already been enacted or were developed before the adoption of the said principles. Moreover, the low availability and the lack of translation of the ‘CoE sources’ as well as the (over)reliance of German courts on the national constitution in developing standards of individual protection present further hindrances for their full permeation. However—at least conceptually—German law lives up to the said principles and often even exceeds them. The chapter concludes that it seems to be only a matter of time and the right opportunity for such impact to become full-blown in the German legal system.

This chapter explores the impact on Portuguese administrative law of the pan-European principles of good administration developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE). It highlights that ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights has helped to deepen democracy and safeguard the protection of fundamental rights, not only in the direct aftermath of the democratic revolution of 25 April 1974 which brought down the dictatorship of the “Estado Novo” regime but up to today. The chapter further argues that numerous cases at the European Court of Human Rights have resulted in reforms to the Portuguese legal system, especially concerning fair trial requirements. At the same time the influence of other CoE conventions and recommendations remains somewhat limited. The chapter concludes that the overall impact of the pan-European principles of good administration has not been properly studied and, thus, complete evaluation thereof is not possible.

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.