机构自由裁量权

Jānis Neimanis
{"title":"机构自由裁量权","authors":"Jānis Neimanis","doi":"10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article considers discretion enjoyed by institutions. Discretion enjoyed by institutions implies that law grants а right to choose between various legal implications for the person who applies the law. Discretion is а legislative tool which helps achieve а high level of fairness in an individual case. Discretion of institutions provided by lawmakers enables an institution to consider the specific circumstances of а specific situation and reach а fairer result. However, even such “freedom” imposes an obligation on the institution to apply it in а responsible and correct manner. Discretion does not mean that the institution is granted absolute “freedom” or arbitrariness. The scope of control of discretion in а higher institution and а court differs. А higher institution independently carries out all feasibility assessments for а second time based on merit, ultimately reaching а similar or different result. The courts can verify the validity of the activities undertaken by the public administration: a) failure to use discretion; b) abuse of discretion; c) misuse of discretion. The courts do not have the right to take а decision on the most appropriate result since it leads to violation of the principle of separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":7222,"journal":{"name":"Administrative law and process","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DISCRETION OF INSTITUTIONS\",\"authors\":\"Jānis Neimanis\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article considers discretion enjoyed by institutions. Discretion enjoyed by institutions implies that law grants а right to choose between various legal implications for the person who applies the law. Discretion is а legislative tool which helps achieve а high level of fairness in an individual case. Discretion of institutions provided by lawmakers enables an institution to consider the specific circumstances of а specific situation and reach а fairer result. However, even such “freedom” imposes an obligation on the institution to apply it in а responsible and correct manner. Discretion does not mean that the institution is granted absolute “freedom” or arbitrariness. The scope of control of discretion in а higher institution and а court differs. А higher institution independently carries out all feasibility assessments for а second time based on merit, ultimately reaching а similar or different result. The courts can verify the validity of the activities undertaken by the public administration: a) failure to use discretion; b) abuse of discretion; c) misuse of discretion. The courts do not have the right to take а decision on the most appropriate result since it leads to violation of the principle of separation of powers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative law and process\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative law and process\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative law and process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

文章考虑了机构所享有的自由裁量权。机构享有的自由裁量权意味着法律授予适用法律的人在各种法律影响之间进行选择的权利。自由裁量权是一种立法工具,有助于在个别案件中实现高度公平。立法者提供的机构自由裁量权使机构能够考虑特定情况的具体情况,并达到更公平的结果。然而,即使是这种“自由”也要求机构有义务以负责任和正确的方式应用这种自由。自由裁量权并不意味着该机构被授予绝对的“自由”或任意性。高等院校和法院自由裁量权的控制范围不同。А高等院校根据择优情况,独立进行第二次可行性评估,最终得出相似或不同的结果。法院可以核实公共行政部门所从事活动的有效性:a)未能使用自由裁量权;B)滥用自由裁量权;C)滥用自由裁量权。法院没有权利就最适当的结果作出决定,因为这违反了权力分立原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
DISCRETION OF INSTITUTIONS
The article considers discretion enjoyed by institutions. Discretion enjoyed by institutions implies that law grants а right to choose between various legal implications for the person who applies the law. Discretion is а legislative tool which helps achieve а high level of fairness in an individual case. Discretion of institutions provided by lawmakers enables an institution to consider the specific circumstances of а specific situation and reach а fairer result. However, even such “freedom” imposes an obligation on the institution to apply it in а responsible and correct manner. Discretion does not mean that the institution is granted absolute “freedom” or arbitrariness. The scope of control of discretion in а higher institution and а court differs. А higher institution independently carries out all feasibility assessments for а second time based on merit, ultimately reaching а similar or different result. The courts can verify the validity of the activities undertaken by the public administration: a) failure to use discretion; b) abuse of discretion; c) misuse of discretion. The courts do not have the right to take а decision on the most appropriate result since it leads to violation of the principle of separation of powers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SOME ISSUES OF INSTANCE JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS UNDER MARITAL LAW THE LEGAL ESSENCE OF THE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: A BRIEF COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS PECULIARITIES OF DETERMINING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL OF UKRAINE AS A SUBJECT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION THE LAW ON FOOD SECURITY OF UKRAINE AS A LEGAL BASIS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE FIELD OF ENSURING FOOD SECURITY
×
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