Aanmelden voor e-mailalert

Als u zich aanmeldt voor de gratis e‑mailalert van Netherlands Administrative Law Library, ontvangt u automatisch een bericht wanneer een nieuw artikel is gepubliceerd op deze website.

Aanmelden

Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Rubriek Article (peer reviewed) x Classification Bestuursrecht algemeen x

    The contribution assesses Germany’s better regulation system as quality assurance system. At first, the paper outlines the development of the system over the last years and describes its main characteristics. The introduction of the Nationaler Normenkontrollrat (National Regulatory Control Council) in 2006 can be seen as a cornerstone in this respect. The competency of the National Regulatory Control Council was extended in 2011 and a new concept of cost measurement of regulatory costs - compliance costs - was introduced. The new concept captures not only the costs arising from information obligations, but all compliance costs of a regulation. Secondly, the paper discusses the challenges to the better regulation system, in particular, those due to Germany’s federal structure providing in most legislative areas for a separation of actual law making at the federal level and execution of laws by the German Länder (and their municipalities).


Dirk Zeitz
Research Fellow at Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung (FÖV).Contact details: Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer, Email: zeitz@foev-speyer.de, Phone: +49 (0)6232 654-301.

    The codification of policy rules is based on the assumption that public authorities will adopt their policy in policy rules and that judges will use these policy rules when assessing individual decisions. However, codification might have side effects, like the existence of rules that do not meet the criteria of policy rules. This article examines the extent to which the objectives of the legislator have been achieved. It is concluded that public bodies indeed adopt policy rules more and more, but that these rules do not always meet the standards. Administrative courts appear to use rules when assessing decisions, but do not seem to follow the scheme as laid down in the GALA. The codification resulted in a complexity of rules, but this complexity does not hamper judicial review. After all: the judicial review is centered on the individual decision, not so much on the nature of the applied rule.


Albertjan Tollenaar Ph.D.

    In 1998 a chapter on administrative enforcement was added to the GALA (in the so-called third Tranche). This contribution reflects on the legislative aims of this Tranche; to what extent these aims have been attained and what important developments have occurred since. As the third Tranche has led to little reform, a brief review will suffice. The developments after the third Tranche are discussed extensively, concerning both the third Tranche - amongst others the obligation in principle to enforce ('beginselplicht tot handhaving') - and reparatory sanctions since the fourth Tranche (2009), which amongst others regulated the execution of administrative reparatory sanctions and added regulation on administrative fines (a punitive sanction). Additionally, more general provisions of administrative law enforcement are discussed. The development of administrative enforcement are reflected against general developments in administrative law, such as harmonization and the increase of litigation. Lastly some bottlenecks will be noticed and solutions proposed.


Prof.mr.drs. Lex Michiels

    This publication discusses all aspects of causal connection between damages and unlawful governmental decisions.


Laura Di Bella
: Laura Di Bella is als PhD. fellow verbonden aan de afdeling Staats- en bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Leiden. Zij doet onderzoek naar de bijzondere positie van de overheid in het onrechtmatigedaadsrecht.

    The case law of the Court of Justice on revoking a national final administrative decision or judgement which is not compliant with EU law can illustrate the existing tension between the principle of primacy on the one hand, and the principle of national procedural autonomy on the other. Although the Court’s choice for one of the two principles as a starting point for solving a collision between EU law and national law may seem arbitrary at first glance, a system may be possible to a certain extent. This study discusses this system, hoping to provide a possible model of explanation which may be applicable to future case law.


Rolf Ortlep
R. Ortlep is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en verbonden aan het Instituut voor Staats- en Bestuursrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht.  M.J.M. Verhoeven is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en RAIO bij de Rechtbank Arnhem.

Maartje Verhoeven
M.J.M. Verhoeven is gepromoveerd rechtswetenschapper en RAIO bij de Rechtbank Arnhem.
Interface Showing Amount

Over deze zoekfunctie

Met deze zoekfunctie kunt u alleen zoeken in alle bijdragen van NALL die zijn gepubliceerd onder het tabblad ‘Artikelen’. U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. De bijdragen in de Bibliotheek zijn niet fulltext doorzoekbaar.

U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.