The municipal environmental protection action addresses the question of whether and to what extent municipalities can enforce environmental protection concerns in court. German law does not recognize it in principle. The study showed that although supranational law does not currently require that municipalities be granted the same legal protection options as environmental associations, the Swiss legal system uses the municipal environmental protection action, there called environmental protection complaint, to effectuate environmental protection. Two Swiss models have been identified. The first model contains special legal rights of appeal of municipalities that are linked to their potential impact, so that a general link between environmental impairment and the municipal territory is sufficient. The second model contains the right of appeal created by case law, which allows municipalities to assert the protection of their inhabitants from emissions as well as local natural resources via the right of appeal designed for private individuals, if the community is concretely affected by the environmental impairment as a whole, which is mainly the case if the environmental impact is caused by the municipalities. This is the case, above all, if the project to be assessed has such a significant impact that all or at least a large part of its population is affected. If the second Swiss model is to be introduced in Germany via Section 42 (2) 2nd Vari. VwGO, then a link to the guarantee of self-government is preferable. The use of the figure of procuratorial law is, however, worth considering if the Union jurisdiction should further expand the possibilities for municipal actions in the event of violations of EU environmental law.
{"title":"Die kommunale Umweltschutzklage","authors":"K. Reiling","doi":"10.3790/verw.54.4.515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.54.4.515","url":null,"abstract":"The municipal environmental protection action addresses the question of whether and to what extent municipalities can enforce environmental protection concerns in court. German law does not recognize it in principle. The study showed that although supranational law does not currently require that municipalities be granted the same legal protection options as environmental associations, the Swiss legal system uses the municipal environmental protection action, there called environmental protection complaint, to effectuate environmental protection. Two Swiss models have been identified. The first model contains special legal rights of appeal of municipalities that are linked to their potential impact, so that a general link between environmental impairment and the municipal territory is sufficient. The second model contains the right of appeal created by case law, which allows municipalities to assert the protection of their inhabitants from emissions as well as local natural resources via the right of appeal designed for private individuals, if the community is concretely affected by the environmental impairment as a whole, which is mainly the case if the environmental impact is caused by the municipalities. This is the case, above all, if the project to be assessed has such a significant impact that all or at least a large part of its population is affected.\u0000If the second Swiss model is to be introduced in Germany via Section 42 (2) 2nd Vari. VwGO, then a link to the guarantee of self-government is preferable. The use of the figure of procuratorial law is, however, worth considering if the Union jurisdiction should further expand the possibilities for municipal actions in the event of violations of EU environmental law.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42481049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the capacity of the welfare state (“social state”) to provide health protection. In light of the challenges of the pandemic, the social state principle needs to be reassessed, especially as it entails a constitutional obligation to organize health protection effectively. In addition, the concept of “resilience” may help explain why preparedness is one of the social state principle’s core characteristics. From the outset of the pandemic, the lack of preparedness has been a serious concern, along with the lack of cooperation between public health authorities and health care institutions. Particularly due to staffing problems and insufficient IT infrastructure, public health authorities have had to cope with perpetual performance problems. Consequently, the modification of legal provisions relating to the organization of health-related public administration is necessary to improve preparedness, performance, and cooperation.
{"title":"Katastrophensensible Infrastruktur im Gesundheitssozialstaat","authors":"S. Rixen","doi":"10.3790/verw.54.3.319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.54.3.319","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the capacity of the welfare state (“social state”) to provide health protection. In light of the challenges of the pandemic, the social state principle needs to be reassessed, especially as it entails a constitutional obligation to organize health protection effectively. In addition, the concept of “resilience” may help explain why preparedness is one of the social state principle’s core characteristics. From the outset of the pandemic, the lack of preparedness has been a serious concern, along with the lack of cooperation between public health authorities and health care institutions. Particularly due to staffing problems and insufficient IT infrastructure, public health authorities have had to cope with perpetual performance problems. Consequently, the modification of legal provisions relating to the organization of health-related public administration is necessary to improve preparedness, performance, and cooperation.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44166516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Deutschland landet in europäischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelmäßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung für die deutsche öffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verstärkter Anstrengungen aller föderaler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ernüchternd einzuschätzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den Hürden und ausgewählten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schlüsselbereich bürgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den städtischen Bürgerämtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse für die zukünftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung öffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten. Germany regularly lands in the lower midfield of European public administration digitalization rankings. Despite increased efforts at all levels of government, particularly in implementing the so-called Online Access Act (OZG), the digitalization record of the German administration continues to be rather sobering. Against this background, the following article analyses the practice, hurdles and selected effects of digitalization at the local level of government. It draws on data obtained from an empirical study carried out by the authors in 2019. The study investigated the digital transformation in local one-stop shops, a key area of citizen-related service provision which deliver the local public services most frequently requested by citizens. Based on our analysis, we draw some important conclusions regarding the future developments of the digital transformation in German public service provision.
{"title":"Digitale Transformation in deutschen Kommunen","authors":"J. Bogumil, Sabine Kuhlmann","doi":"10.3790/VERW.54.1.105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.54.1.105","url":null,"abstract":"Deutschland landet in europäischen Rankings zur Verwaltungsdigitalisierung regelmäßig im hinteren Mittelfeld. Die bisherige Bilanz der Digitalisierung für die deutsche öffentliche Verwaltung ist trotz verstärkter Anstrengungen aller föderaler Ebenen, wie sie insbesondere in der Umsetzung des Onlinezugangsgesetzes (OZG) zum Ausdruck kommen, nach wie vor als eher ernüchternd einzuschätzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich der vorliegende Beitrag mit der Umsetzung, den Hürden und ausgewählten Wirkungsaspekten der Verwaltungsdigitalisierung auf kommunaler Ebene. Die empirische Basis bildet eine 2019 abgeschlossene Studie zur digitalen Transformation in einem Schlüsselbereich bürgerbezogener Leistungserbringung, den städtischen Bürgerämtern, welche die am meisten nachgefragten kommunalen Dienstleistungen bereitstellen. Aus der Analyse lassen sich wichtige Erkenntnisse für die zukünftige Entwicklung der Digitalisierung öffentlicher Leistungserbringung in Deutschland ableiten. Germany regularly lands in the lower midfield of European public administration digitalization rankings. Despite increased efforts at all levels of government, particularly in implementing the so-called Online Access Act (OZG), the digitalization record of the German administration continues to be rather sobering. Against this background, the following article analyses the practice, hurdles and selected effects of digitalization at the local level of government. It draws on data obtained from an empirical study carried out by the authors in 2019. The study investigated the digital transformation in local one-stop shops, a key area of citizen-related service provision which deliver the local public services most frequently requested by citizens. Based on our analysis, we draw some important conclusions regarding the future developments of the digital transformation in German public service provision.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"54 1","pages":"105-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70201685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
2017 hat der Gemeinsame Parlamentarische Kontrollausschuss für Europol seine Tätigkeit aufgenommen. Mit der Einrichtung dieses Ausschusses aus Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments und der mitgliedstaatlichen Parlamente übt erstmals ein interparlamentarisches Gremium formalisierte Verwaltungskontrolle aus. Dies bedeutet eine substantielle Fortentwicklung der interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit; und es wird ein neuartiger Mechanismus der Verwaltungskontrolle im europäischen Sicherheitsverwaltungsverbund etabliert. Vor dem Hintergrund bestehender Formen interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit beleuchtet der Beitrag, wie der Europol-Kontrollausschuss als innovatives Instrument der Verwaltungskontrolle funktioniert. Er untersucht die Leistungsfähigkeit aber auch die Barrieren der Verwaltungskontrolle in der Form interparlamentarischer Gremien. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass solche Gremien grundsätzlich einen Beitrag zur demokratischen Kontrolle von Verwaltungsverbünden auf europäischer Ebene leisten können, gerade im Hinblick auf EU-Agenturen und sonstige verselbstständigte Behörden. Das Ergebnis der Analyse ist jedoch, dass der Europol-Kontrollausschuss in der Praxis erst noch beweisen muss, dass er effektive Kontrolle leistet und sich somit als Vorbild eignet. In 2017, the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group for the oversight over the EU agency Europol took up its work. This committee, which consists of parliamentarians from both the European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, is the first of its kind. For the first time an interparliamentary institution is formally tasked with a mandate to scrutinize an administrative body. This amounts to a substantive evolution of parliamentary cooperation. At the same time, an innovative mechanism of administrative control regarding the cooperation of European security administrations was introduced. The paper examines how the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group exercises its scrutiny powers. It analyses both the specific capacity of interparliamentary bodies to perform administrative control and the inherent limits thereof. It points out that interparliamentary bodies can contribute, in particular, to controlling independent EU agencies that take part in European administrative cooperation. Yet, it shows that the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group in practice still has to prove that it is actually willing and able to exercise effective control over Europol.
{"title":"Der Gemeinsame Parlamentarische Kontrollausschuss für Europol: Innovative Verwaltungskontrolle in der EU","authors":"Tarik Tabbara, J. Achenbach","doi":"10.3790/VERW.54.1.73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.54.1.73","url":null,"abstract":"2017 hat der Gemeinsame Parlamentarische Kontrollausschuss für Europol seine Tätigkeit aufgenommen. Mit der Einrichtung dieses Ausschusses aus Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments und der mitgliedstaatlichen Parlamente übt erstmals ein interparlamentarisches Gremium formalisierte Verwaltungskontrolle aus. Dies bedeutet eine substantielle Fortentwicklung der interparlamentarischen Zusammenarbeit; und es wird ein neuartiger Mechanismus der Verwaltungskontrolle im europäischen Sicherheitsverwaltungsverbund etabliert. Vor dem Hintergrund bestehender Formen interparlamentarischer Zusammenarbeit beleuchtet der Beitrag, wie der Europol-Kontrollausschuss als innovatives Instrument der Verwaltungskontrolle funktioniert. Er untersucht die Leistungsfähigkeit aber auch die Barrieren der Verwaltungskontrolle in der Form interparlamentarischer Gremien. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass solche Gremien grundsätzlich einen Beitrag zur demokratischen Kontrolle von Verwaltungsverbünden auf europäischer Ebene leisten können, gerade im Hinblick auf EU-Agenturen und sonstige verselbstständigte Behörden. Das Ergebnis der Analyse ist jedoch, dass der Europol-Kontrollausschuss in der Praxis erst noch beweisen muss, dass er effektive Kontrolle leistet und sich somit als Vorbild eignet. In 2017, the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group for the oversight over the EU agency Europol took up its work. This committee, which consists of parliamentarians from both the European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, is the first of its kind. For the first time an interparliamentary institution is formally tasked with a mandate to scrutinize an administrative body. This amounts to a substantive evolution of parliamentary cooperation. At the same time, an innovative mechanism of administrative control regarding the cooperation of European security administrations was introduced. The paper examines how the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group exercises its scrutiny powers. It analyses both the specific capacity of interparliamentary bodies to perform administrative control and the inherent limits thereof. It points out that interparliamentary bodies can contribute, in particular, to controlling independent EU agencies that take part in European administrative cooperation. Yet, it shows that the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group in practice still has to prove that it is actually willing and able to exercise effective control over Europol.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"54 1","pages":"73-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70201816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Comprised of a plurality of legal actors and powered by a highly polarised social and legal discourse, German gambling law provides a framework for the ever booming gambling market. It is challenged by digitalization and by the internationalization of gambling. In addition, it faces adverse regulatory impulses, ranging from liberalization to a firm regulatory grasp within a couple of years. On the one hand, it purports to offer a sufficiently attractive supply of gambling products in order to draw the public into legal forms and away from illegal forms of gambling. On the other hand, its regulatory objective seeks to fence in and suppress the gambling urges of the population. On the whole, German gambling law is characterized by three, legally and factually interdependent problems. First, it needs to come up with a practical, inclusive and dynamic legal definition of its subject-matter, i. e.: what counts as legally relevant gambling? Second, it needs to define, maintain and implement larger objectives in regard to a target audience that do not overburden the executive und judicial branch with the need to reconcile contradicting regulatory impulses. Finally, it needs to guarantee a sufficient degree of implementation, which is achieved by combination of rational and high-quality legislation, adequate resources, and the necessary political will. Gambling law in Germany lacks these features to varying degrees. It, therefore, increasingly falls prey to mere legal symbolism that pretends to govern the gambling market much more than it actually does. The constitutional distribution of legislative and executive competencies in favor of the German Länder (“states”) is largely insufficient. Governing gambling in an international and highly digitalized market requires federal legislation and execution. The German federal authorities should consider federalizing gambling law by means of Art. 72 II GG and creating a federal gambling agency on the basis of Art. 87 III GG.
{"title":"Strukturprobleme des Glücksspielrechts","authors":"Julian Krüper","doi":"10.3790/VERW.54.1.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.54.1.37","url":null,"abstract":"Comprised of a plurality of legal actors and powered by a highly polarised social and legal discourse, German gambling law provides a framework for the ever booming gambling market. It is challenged by digitalization and by the internationalization of gambling. In addition, it faces adverse regulatory impulses, ranging from liberalization to a firm regulatory grasp within a couple of years. On the one hand, it purports to offer a sufficiently attractive supply of gambling products in order to draw the public into legal forms and away from illegal forms of gambling. On the other hand, its regulatory objective seeks to fence in and suppress the gambling urges of the population. On the whole, German gambling law is characterized by three, legally and factually interdependent problems. First, it needs to come up with a practical, inclusive and dynamic legal definition of its subject-matter, i. e.: what counts as legally relevant gambling? Second, it needs to define, maintain and implement larger objectives in regard to a target audience that do not overburden the executive und judicial branch with the need to reconcile contradicting regulatory impulses. Finally, it needs to guarantee a sufficient degree of implementation, which is achieved by combination of rational and high-quality legislation, adequate resources, and the necessary political will. Gambling law in Germany lacks these features to varying degrees. It, therefore, increasingly falls prey to mere legal symbolism that pretends to govern the gambling market much more than it actually does. The constitutional distribution of legislative and executive competencies in favor of the German Länder (“states”) is largely insufficient. Governing gambling in an international and highly digitalized market requires federal legislation and execution. The German federal authorities should consider federalizing gambling law by means of Art. 72 II GG and creating a federal gambling agency on the basis of Art. 87 III GG.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"54 1","pages":"37-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70201736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
German data protection laws all provide for provisions that allow public authorities to process personal data whenever this is ‘necessary’ for the respective authority to fulfil its tasks or, in the case of sensitive data in the meaning of art. 9 GDPR, if this is ‘absolutely necessary’. Therewith, in theory, data protection law provides for a high degree of administrative flexibility, e. g. to cope with unforeseen situations like the Coronavirus pandemic. However, these provisions, referred to in German doctrine as ‘Generalklauseln’ (general clauses or ‘catch-all’-provisions in English), are hardly used, as legal orthodoxy assumes that they are too vague to form a sufficiently clear legal basis for public purpose processing under the strict terms of the German fundamental right to informational self-determination (art. 2(1), 1(1) German Basic Law). As this orthodoxy appears to be supported by case law of the German Constitutional Court, legislators have dutifully reacted by creating a plethora of sector specific laws and provisions to enable data processing by public authorities. As a consequence, German administrative data protection law has become highly detailed and confusing, even for legal experts, therewith betraying the very purpose of legal clarity and foreseeability that scholars intended to foster by requiring ever more detailed legal bases. In our paper, we examine the reasons that underlie the German ‘ban’ on using the ‘Generalklauseln’. We conclude that the reasons do not justify the ban in general, but only in specific areas and/or processing situations such as security and criminal law. Finally, we list several arguments that do speak in favour of a more ‘daring’ approach when it comes to using the ‘Generalklauseln’ for public purpose data processing.
{"title":"Generalklauseln im Datenschutzrecht","authors":"Nikolaus Marsch, Timo Rademacher","doi":"10.3790/VERW.54.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.54.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"German data protection laws all provide for provisions that allow public authorities to process personal data whenever this is ‘necessary’ for the respective authority to fulfil its tasks or, in the case of sensitive data in the meaning of art. 9 GDPR, if this is ‘absolutely necessary’. Therewith, in theory, data protection law provides for a high degree of administrative flexibility, e. g. to cope with unforeseen situations like the Coronavirus pandemic. However, these provisions, referred to in German doctrine as ‘Generalklauseln’ (general clauses or ‘catch-all’-provisions in English), are hardly used, as legal orthodoxy assumes that they are too vague to form a sufficiently clear legal basis for public purpose processing under the strict terms of the German fundamental right to informational self-determination (art. 2(1), 1(1) German Basic Law). As this orthodoxy appears to be supported by case law of the German Constitutional Court, legislators have dutifully reacted by creating a plethora of sector specific laws and provisions to enable data processing by public authorities. As a consequence, German administrative data protection law has become highly detailed and confusing, even for legal experts, therewith betraying the very purpose of legal clarity and foreseeability that scholars intended to foster by requiring ever more detailed legal bases. In our paper, we examine the reasons that underlie the German ‘ban’ on using the ‘Generalklauseln’. We conclude that the reasons do not justify the ban in general, but only in specific areas and/or processing situations such as security and criminal law. Finally, we list several arguments that do speak in favour of a more ‘daring’ approach when it comes to using the ‘Generalklauseln’ for public purpose data processing.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"54 1","pages":"1-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70202141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the social constitutional state, the administration’s mandate is not limited to making legal and expedient decisions. According to § 25 of the German Administrative Procedure Act and parallel provisions in social, tax and procurement laws, the office administrators are obliged to advise the individual to a certain extent on the exercise of their rights, whereby the requirement of legality and expediency is at least to some extent supplemented by a requirement of optimization. The present contribution will discuss the justification, the regulatory context, and the extent of the duty to provide advice, as well as the consequences of insufficient or incorrect advice. The institution of official advice is interesting for the discipline of administrative law as it stands at the interface of civil law and administrative law (substantive and procedural), and therefore, is able to reconstruct its dogmatic form on the basis of the “doctrine of legal relations”. Finally, the official duties to advise exemplify how administrative procedural law deals with information risks – a hitherto neglected component of general information administrative law.
{"title":"Behördliche Beratung und Informationsrisiko","authors":"Johannes Eichenhofer","doi":"10.3790/VERW.53.4.501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3790/VERW.53.4.501","url":null,"abstract":"In the social constitutional state, the administration’s mandate is not limited to making legal and expedient decisions. According to § 25 of the German Administrative Procedure Act and parallel provisions in social, tax and procurement laws, the office administrators are obliged to advise the individual to a certain extent on the exercise of their rights, whereby the requirement of legality and expediency is at least to some extent supplemented by a requirement of optimization. The present contribution will discuss the justification, the regulatory context, and the extent of the duty to provide advice, as well as the consequences of insufficient or incorrect advice. The institution of official advice is interesting for the discipline of administrative law as it stands at the interface of civil law and administrative law (substantive and procedural), and therefore, is able to reconstruct its dogmatic form on the basis of the “doctrine of legal relations”. Finally, the official duties to advise exemplify how administrative procedural law deals with information risks – a hitherto neglected component of general information administrative law.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":"53 1","pages":"501-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41648115","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：