CEPEJ Gudelines for Mediation Resolving Administrative Disputes – A Comparison between Council of Europe States and Ukrainian Perspectives

Alina Serhieieva
{"title":"CEPEJ Gudelines for Mediation Resolving Administrative Disputes – A Comparison between Council of Europe States and Ukrainian Perspectives","authors":"Alina Serhieieva","doi":"10.18778/0208-6069.105.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The status of Ukraine as a candidate country for the European Union membership reinforces the need for comparative analysis between Ukrainian regulations and law of other EU Member States as well as European regulations. One of the fields of comparative law is a development of mediation for disputes covered by administrative law. It has already been a subject of interest and promotion to both – The EU and the Council of Europe, since European standards of democracy provide for state cooperate with citizens/individuals. The aim of this article is, to examine the main provisions, recommendations and best practices of the CoE member states, and to analyse the current practice and existing gaps in Ukraine in order to develop a proposal for effective implementation in the light of the most recent CEPEJ Guidelines promoting mediation to resolve administrative disputes. A comparative overview of this type of mediation regulations may be considered as novum. As for methodology, the paper is dominated by the logical-linguistic and comparative method. So far – though Ukrainian legal system is quite compatibile with the examined CEPEJ gudelines and provide for inter-branch solutions – the development of administrative and court-administrative mediation is quite resilient and there is still much to be done not solely with legal regulations, but also „mediation culture” in such field.","PeriodicalId":504234,"journal":{"name":"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica","volume":"119 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.105.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The status of Ukraine as a candidate country for the European Union membership reinforces the need for comparative analysis between Ukrainian regulations and law of other EU Member States as well as European regulations. One of the fields of comparative law is a development of mediation for disputes covered by administrative law. It has already been a subject of interest and promotion to both – The EU and the Council of Europe, since European standards of democracy provide for state cooperate with citizens/individuals. The aim of this article is, to examine the main provisions, recommendations and best practices of the CoE member states, and to analyse the current practice and existing gaps in Ukraine in order to develop a proposal for effective implementation in the light of the most recent CEPEJ Guidelines promoting mediation to resolve administrative disputes. A comparative overview of this type of mediation regulations may be considered as novum. As for methodology, the paper is dominated by the logical-linguistic and comparative method. So far – though Ukrainian legal system is quite compatibile with the examined CEPEJ gudelines and provide for inter-branch solutions – the development of administrative and court-administrative mediation is quite resilient and there is still much to be done not solely with legal regulations, but also „mediation culture” in such field.
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
CEPEJ 调解解决行政争议准则--欧洲委员会国家与乌克兰观点的比较
乌克兰作为欧盟成员国的候选国,更有必要对乌克兰的法规和欧盟其他成员国的法律以及欧洲的法规进行比较分析。比较法的一个领域是发展行政法所涵盖的争端调解。由于欧洲的民主标准规定了国家与公民/个人的合作,这已经成为欧盟和欧洲委员会共同关注和推动的主题。本文的目的是研究欧洲委员会成员国的主要规定、建议和最佳做法,分析乌克兰的现行做法和存在的差距,以便根据欧洲委员会促进调解以解决行政争议的最新指导方针,制定有效实施的建议。对此类调解条例的比较性概述可被视为新发现。在方法论方面,本文主要采用逻辑-语言和比较方法。到目前为止,尽管乌克兰的法律体系与所研究的 CEPEJ 准则相当一致,并提供了跨部门的解决方 案,但行政调解和法院行政调解的发展仍有很大的弹性,不仅在法律规定方面,而且在该领域的 "调 解文化 "方面仍有许多工作要做。
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
Środki karne w świetle nowelizacji Kodeksu karnego z dnia 7 lipca 2022 roku – wybrane problemy CEPEJ Gudelines for Mediation Resolving Administrative Disputes – A Comparison between Council of Europe States and Ukrainian Perspectives The Sustainability of Esas Triumvirate for Sustainability-Related Disclosures in the Financial Sector – All for One and One for All? Artykuł recenzyjny monografii autorstwa Michała Ziółkowskiego pt. Odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza za niezgodne z prawem działanie władzy publicznej. Studium z prawa konstytucyjnego. Warszawa 2021, Wolters Kluwer, ss. 516 Use of ICT Systems in Handling Monetary Civil Claims in Poland and England (United Kingdom): A Comparative Analysis
×
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