Disqualification of en employee of a public administration authority in the European Union Member States

Z. Kmiecik
{"title":"Disqualification of en employee of a public administration authority in the European Union Member States","authors":"Z. Kmiecik","doi":"10.14746/rpeis.2023.85.2.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the rules contained in the Code of Good Administrative Behavior adopted in 2001 by the European Parliament is the principle of impartiality and independence (Article 8). The presence of this rule, despite its non-binding nature, prompted the author to examine – using the method of comparative law analysis – whether the EU Member States have regulated this issue in their legal systems – and if so, to what extent and how. The basic institution serving the implementation of this principle is the disqualification of an employee of the authority from participation in the proceedings in situations where their impartiality seems to be at risk. Not all EU countries explicitly provide for such an institution. Among the legal systems that contain it, only some regulate the entirety of issues related to it: the grounds for disqualification, the procedure for disqualification and the consequences of it, as well as the appealability of orders taken in this matter and the consequences of violating the provisions on disqualification. Regulations of individual issues differ in the degree of detail. This applies primarily to the reasons for the disqualification of an employee of the authority. The most important reason for the disqualification of employees (except when they or their spouse are a party to the proceedings) is the consanguinity or affinity between them and the party. However, the ranges of such ties resulting in automatic disqualification of an employee, adopted in EU member states, differ significantly. The second area of significant difference is the consequences of the potentially biased employee’s participation in the proceedings. The solutions adopted in this regard in legislation and jurisprudence depend on how the main purpose of the provisions concerning the disqualification of an employee is perceived: as strengthening the public’s trust in the executive, or as a fair settlement of the matter.","PeriodicalId":34827,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Prawniczy Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ruch Prawniczy Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2023.85.2.09","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

One of the rules contained in the Code of Good Administrative Behavior adopted in 2001 by the European Parliament is the principle of impartiality and independence (Article 8). The presence of this rule, despite its non-binding nature, prompted the author to examine – using the method of comparative law analysis – whether the EU Member States have regulated this issue in their legal systems – and if so, to what extent and how. The basic institution serving the implementation of this principle is the disqualification of an employee of the authority from participation in the proceedings in situations where their impartiality seems to be at risk. Not all EU countries explicitly provide for such an institution. Among the legal systems that contain it, only some regulate the entirety of issues related to it: the grounds for disqualification, the procedure for disqualification and the consequences of it, as well as the appealability of orders taken in this matter and the consequences of violating the provisions on disqualification. Regulations of individual issues differ in the degree of detail. This applies primarily to the reasons for the disqualification of an employee of the authority. The most important reason for the disqualification of employees (except when they or their spouse are a party to the proceedings) is the consanguinity or affinity between them and the party. However, the ranges of such ties resulting in automatic disqualification of an employee, adopted in EU member states, differ significantly. The second area of significant difference is the consequences of the potentially biased employee’s participation in the proceedings. The solutions adopted in this regard in legislation and jurisprudence depend on how the main purpose of the provisions concerning the disqualification of an employee is perceived: as strengthening the public’s trust in the executive, or as a fair settlement of the matter.
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
取消欧洲联盟成员国公共行政当局一名雇员的资格
2001年欧洲议会通过的《良好行政行为准则》中包含的规则之一是公正和独立原则(第8条)。尽管这一规则具有非约束性,但它的存在促使作者使用比较法分析的方法来研究欧盟成员国是否在其法律体系中规范了这一问题,如果有,在多大程度上以及如何规范。为执行这一原则服务的基本制度是,在当局雇员的公正性似乎受到威胁的情况下,取消其参与诉讼的资格。并非所有欧盟国家都明确规定设立这样一个机构。在包含取消资格的法律制度中,只有一些制度规定了与取消资格有关的全部问题:取消资格的理由、取消资格的程序及其后果,以及就这一事项作出的命令的可上诉性和违反取消资格规定的后果。个别问题的规定在详细程度上有所不同。这主要适用于当局雇员被取消资格的原因。雇员被取消资格的最重要原因(除非他们或他们的配偶是诉讼的一方)是他们与当事人之间的血缘关系或亲缘关系。然而,欧盟成员国采用的导致员工自动丧失资格的这种关系的范围差异很大。第二个显著不同的领域是可能有偏见的员工参与诉讼的后果。立法和判例在这方面采取的解决办法取决于人们如何看待有关取消雇员资格的规定的主要目的:是加强公众对行政部门的信任,还是公平地解决问题。
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
55
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
On why the Court did not want to fight smog, or several comments on the resolution of the Polish Supreme Court on the right to live in a clean environment The golden algorithm and the Tower of Babel versus freedom and democracy: the answer to biodiversity COVID-19’s re-bordering impact on the identity of the Polish-German borderland from the perspective of Polish residents: the case of the twin cities of Słubice and Gubin Symbole pamięci i prawa pamięci w Izraelu Climate law in European Union legislation. Does it already exist?
×
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