This article on the usefulness of a general codification of administrative law forms the closing contribution of a NALL-special. In this special, various authors have reflected on the successfulness of a broad codification process in 1998, which introduced rules on the notification of decisions, policy rules, subsidies, enforcement and supervision of administrative authorities in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act (GALA). The editors asked the contributors whether the objectives of the rules introduced were met and how the rules turned out to function in practice. In this overarching article, the NALL-editors reflect on the general lessons to be learned for the GALA-legislator. In these lessons they also take into consideration the initiatives for a law of administrative procedure of the European Union.

Article 3:41 General administrative law act reads: Orders which are addressed to one or more interested parties shall be notified by being sent or issued to these, including the applicant. If an order cannot be notified in that manner, it shall be notified in any other suitable way. This article examines the extent of 'any other suitable way' and whether the objectives of the legislator have been achieved.

In the case of Byankov the Court of Justice ruled as follows: EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation under which an administrative procedure that has resulted in the adoption of a prohibition on leaving the territory, which has become final and has not been contested before the courts, may be reopened - in the event of the prohibition being clearly contrary to EU law - only in circumstances such as those exhaustively listed in Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, despite the fact that such a prohibition continues to produce legal effects with regard to its addressee. This study discusses how the ruling can be placed in the case law of the Court that in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, EU law does not require that administrative authorities be placed under an obligation to re-examine a national final administrative decision.

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.