Ansprüche und Klagen im Verwaltungsrecht

Q4 Social Sciences Verwaltung Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.3790/VERW.52.2.239
A. Funke
{"title":"Ansprüche und Klagen im Verwaltungsrecht","authors":"A. Funke","doi":"10.3790/VERW.52.2.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Claims and Actions in Administrative Law\n It is beyond dispute that administrative courts protect the rights of individuals. Yet how does this protection actually operate? In his recently published monograph “Actio, Anspruch, subjektives Recht” (2017), Johannes Buchheim suggests a fresh account of legal protection in administrative law issues. Buchheim develops an action-based model concerning the reconstruction of administrative law. The project questions the prevalent approach towards administrative law, labelled as the claim-based model. The claim-based model focusses on substantive claims, which may originate from a violation of an individual right or which may be established directly by a statute, a contract or anadministrative act. It conceives judicial actions as being strictly dependent on such substantive claims. The action-based model denies such a dependence. Instead, it assumes that the courts follow an autonomous logic of decision-making, perceiving the violation of a right only as the initial reference point. This article aspires, firstly, to identify Buchheim’s main objections, secondly, to clarify and to confine the claim-based model in some respects, and lastly, to examine the objections raised by Buchheim in detail. While the book offers a plethora of inspiring ideas, it finally does not succeed in establishing the action-based model. Judicial review is based on claims, not only on (violation of) rights.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verwaltung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.52.2.239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Claims and Actions in Administrative Law It is beyond dispute that administrative courts protect the rights of individuals. Yet how does this protection actually operate? In his recently published monograph “Actio, Anspruch, subjektives Recht” (2017), Johannes Buchheim suggests a fresh account of legal protection in administrative law issues. Buchheim develops an action-based model concerning the reconstruction of administrative law. The project questions the prevalent approach towards administrative law, labelled as the claim-based model. The claim-based model focusses on substantive claims, which may originate from a violation of an individual right or which may be established directly by a statute, a contract or anadministrative act. It conceives judicial actions as being strictly dependent on such substantive claims. The action-based model denies such a dependence. Instead, it assumes that the courts follow an autonomous logic of decision-making, perceiving the violation of a right only as the initial reference point. This article aspires, firstly, to identify Buchheim’s main objections, secondly, to clarify and to confine the claim-based model in some respects, and lastly, to examine the objections raised by Buchheim in detail. While the book offers a plethora of inspiring ideas, it finally does not succeed in establishing the action-based model. Judicial review is based on claims, not only on (violation of) rights.
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
行政法的要求和诉讼
行政法中的权利主张和诉讼行政法院保护个人权利是无可争议的。然而,这种保护实际上是如何运作的呢?Johannes Buchheim在其最近出版的专著《Actio,Anspruch,subjektives Recht》(2017)中,对行政法问题中的法律保护提出了新的看法。布赫海姆提出了一种基于行动的行政法重建模式。该项目质疑被称为基于索赔模式的普遍行政法方法。基于索赔的模式侧重于实质性索赔,这些索赔可能源于对个人权利的侵犯,也可能由法规、合同或行政行为直接确立。它认为司法行动严格依赖于这种实质性主张。基于行动的模型否认了这种依赖性。相反,它假设法院遵循自主决策逻辑,只将侵犯权利视为最初的参考点。本文希望,首先,确定布赫海姆的主要反对意见,其次,在某些方面澄清和限制基于索赔的模型,最后,详细审查布赫海姆提出的反对意见。虽然这本书提供了大量鼓舞人心的想法,但它最终没有成功地建立起基于行动的模式。司法审查是基于索赔,而不仅仅是基于(侵犯)权利。
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
Verwaltung
Verwaltung Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Fluggastdatenspeicherung: Die Zukunft von Vorratsdatenspeicherung und automatisierter Verdachtsgenerierung Das Politische der Gemeinnützigkeit: Das Vereinsrecht zwischen Steuerrecht, Gefahrenabwehr und Antidiskriminierung Die Bedeutung von Handbüchern für die Entwicklung des Öffentlichen Rechts Augmented Reality im öffentlichen Raum Das Standardsetzungsmodell des IT-Sicherheitsrechts im Kontext kritischer Infrastrukturen
×
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