New Approaches to the Right to Be Heard in Relation to the Application of Alternatives to Administrative Sanctions

Soňa Skulová, Radislav Bražina
{"title":"New Approaches to the Right to Be Heard in Relation to the Application of Alternatives to Administrative Sanctions","authors":"Soňa Skulová, Radislav Bražina","doi":"10.17573/CEPAR.2018.1.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The right to be heard is one of the key instruments that ensure adequate protection of the  participants´ rights during the proceedings before the administrative authority. This requirement is especially important in administrative offences proceedings due to fact that administrative bodies may issue also very serious sanctions and it is important to enable the offenders to influence the outcome of proceedings. Therefore may participants raise their objections, opinions, suggestions. The authors also focus on issues related to the possibility of alternative approaches to administrative sanctions and  related issues concerning ensuring adequate position of offender. These questions have not yet  attracted doctrinal attention. Article analyses the currently accepted new legislation on administrative offences proceeding, with overlaps resulting from the Council of Europe documents and including basic comparison with the processing on administrative offences in Germany and Poland. In addition, to the basic analysis of the new legislation benefits, the authors pay attention to the new instrument of “legal settlement” that allows  administrative authorities to approve  agreement between  offender and  injured party about committed administrative offence and the associated remedy. The new institute is worthy researching, particularly because it is one of the first attempts to adopt alternative approaches to administrative offences proceedings and  brings new challenges for administrative authorities. This new institute is compared with the legislation in Germany and Poland. Also methods of analysis of legal requirements of legal documents of Council of Europe and national legislation, normative analysis, literature review and deduction were used in this connection. Authors reached a rather interesting conclusion that the approaches to ADR in administrative offences proceedings are in all three examined different while the article deals more closely with these differences.","PeriodicalId":340197,"journal":{"name":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative & Global Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/CEPAR.2018.1.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The right to be heard is one of the key instruments that ensure adequate protection of the  participants´ rights during the proceedings before the administrative authority. This requirement is especially important in administrative offences proceedings due to fact that administrative bodies may issue also very serious sanctions and it is important to enable the offenders to influence the outcome of proceedings. Therefore may participants raise their objections, opinions, suggestions. The authors also focus on issues related to the possibility of alternative approaches to administrative sanctions and  related issues concerning ensuring adequate position of offender. These questions have not yet  attracted doctrinal attention. Article analyses the currently accepted new legislation on administrative offences proceeding, with overlaps resulting from the Council of Europe documents and including basic comparison with the processing on administrative offences in Germany and Poland. In addition, to the basic analysis of the new legislation benefits, the authors pay attention to the new instrument of “legal settlement” that allows  administrative authorities to approve  agreement between  offender and  injured party about committed administrative offence and the associated remedy. The new institute is worthy researching, particularly because it is one of the first attempts to adopt alternative approaches to administrative offences proceedings and  brings new challenges for administrative authorities. This new institute is compared with the legislation in Germany and Poland. Also methods of analysis of legal requirements of legal documents of Council of Europe and national legislation, normative analysis, literature review and deduction were used in this connection. Authors reached a rather interesting conclusion that the approaches to ADR in administrative offences proceedings are in all three examined different while the article deals more closely with these differences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在行政制裁替代办法的适用方面,表达意见权的新途径
在行政机关诉讼过程中,表达意见的权利是确保参与人权利得到充分保护的重要手段之一。这一要求在行政违法诉讼中尤其重要,因为行政机关也可能发出非常严重的制裁,而且必须使违法者能够影响诉讼结果。因此,参与者可以提出他们的反对意见、意见和建议。作者还着重讨论了与行政制裁的备选办法的可能性有关的问题和与确保罪犯适当地位有关的问题。这些问题还没有引起教义上的注意。本文分析了目前接受的关于行政犯罪诉讼程序的新立法,其中包括欧洲委员会文件造成的重叠,并包括与德国和波兰的行政犯罪处理的基本比较。此外,在对新立法利益的基本分析中,作者还关注了行政机关批准行为人与受害方就行政违法达成的协议及其救济的“法律和解”这一新的立法工具。这个新的研究所值得研究,特别是因为它是对行政犯罪诉讼采取替代办法的首批尝试之一,并给行政当局带来了新的挑战。这一新制度与德国和波兰的立法进行了比较。在这方面还采用了欧洲委员会法律文件和各国立法的法律要求分析、规范分析、文献回顾和推演等方法。作者得出了一个相当有趣的结论,即在这三种情况下,ADR在行政违法诉讼中的处理方式是不同的,而本文更密切地讨论了这些差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Principles of Administrative Discretion: A Case Study of Pakistan The Tension between Global Public Procurement Law and Nationalist/Populist Tendencies: Proposals for Reform Inhabiting Different Realities: Incrementalism, Paradigms and the New Prospect Public Administration Reform in Bulgaria: Top-down and Externally-driven Approach Una Revisión a Los Servicios Públicos de Solidaridad en la Unión Europea (A Review to the Notion of Social Services of General Interest in the European Union )
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1