‘Rectification’ and ‘Irrelevance’ in EU Direct Administrative Procedures: A Systematic and Comparative Analysis

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Laura Hering
{"title":"‘Rectification’ and ‘Irrelevance’ in EU Direct Administrative Procedures: A Systematic and Comparative Analysis","authors":"Laura Hering","doi":"10.54648/euro2020047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of EU direct administrative law is steadily growing in importance, and issues relating to the consequences of procedural irregularities on the outcome of the procedure are becoming increasingly relevant. The question of when such a violation remains inconsequential – i.e. does not lead to the act being quashed during judicial proceedings, either because the error was rectified or can be considered irrelevant – is particularly important, as it can have a significant impact on the legitimacy and acceptance of EU institutions as well as their efficiency and effectiveness and EU case law has developed a complex jurisprudence in this regard. The aim of this contribution is to systematize this case law with regard to the instruments of rectification and irrelevance of procedural irregularities. Moreover, it compares these legal instruments to their counterparts in Member States’ administrative systems. The focus is on the observation that the EU case law has developed a complex network of layers and components to decide what consequences violations of provisions relating to form and procedure entail. The comparison with the Member State administrative systems shows – despite differences in detail – that EU courts have not coopted a particular system currently in use in a Member State, but that they often use roughly similar criteria to decide whether an error leads to the annulment of the final decision. This analysis can be fruitful with regard to the recent interinstitutional as well as academic debate about the codification of administrative procedure of the EU direct administration, neither of which have yet discussed the possibility of rectification and irrelevance of procedural errors in a systematic and comprehensive way, even though the jurisprudence of the EU courts has reached a stage that makes this possible.\nEuropean direct administrative law, procedural errors, consequences of procedural and formal errors, rectification, irrelevance, codification of administrative procedure","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The field of EU direct administrative law is steadily growing in importance, and issues relating to the consequences of procedural irregularities on the outcome of the procedure are becoming increasingly relevant. The question of when such a violation remains inconsequential – i.e. does not lead to the act being quashed during judicial proceedings, either because the error was rectified or can be considered irrelevant – is particularly important, as it can have a significant impact on the legitimacy and acceptance of EU institutions as well as their efficiency and effectiveness and EU case law has developed a complex jurisprudence in this regard. The aim of this contribution is to systematize this case law with regard to the instruments of rectification and irrelevance of procedural irregularities. Moreover, it compares these legal instruments to their counterparts in Member States’ administrative systems. The focus is on the observation that the EU case law has developed a complex network of layers and components to decide what consequences violations of provisions relating to form and procedure entail. The comparison with the Member State administrative systems shows – despite differences in detail – that EU courts have not coopted a particular system currently in use in a Member State, but that they often use roughly similar criteria to decide whether an error leads to the annulment of the final decision. This analysis can be fruitful with regard to the recent interinstitutional as well as academic debate about the codification of administrative procedure of the EU direct administration, neither of which have yet discussed the possibility of rectification and irrelevance of procedural errors in a systematic and comprehensive way, even though the jurisprudence of the EU courts has reached a stage that makes this possible. European direct administrative law, procedural errors, consequences of procedural and formal errors, rectification, irrelevance, codification of administrative procedure
欧盟直接行政程序中的“纠正”与“无关”:系统与比较分析
欧盟直接行政法领域的重要性正在稳步增长,与程序违规对程序结果的影响有关的问题也变得越来越重要。这种违法行为何时仍然无关紧要——即不会导致该行为在司法程序中被撤销,无论是因为错误已经纠正还是可以被视为无关紧要——这一问题尤其重要,因为它会对欧盟机构的合法性和接受度及其效率和效力产生重大影响,欧盟判例法在这方面形成了复杂的判例。这一贡献的目的是使该判例法在纠正文书和与程序违规无关方面系统化。此外,它将这些法律文书与会员国行政系统中的对应文书进行了比较。重点是观察到,欧盟判例法已经形成了一个复杂的层次和组成部分网络,以决定违反与形式和程序有关的规定会产生什么后果。与成员国行政系统的比较表明,尽管在细节上存在差异,但欧盟法院并没有将成员国目前使用的特定系统纳入其中,而是经常使用大致相似的标准来决定错误是否会导致最终裁决无效。这一分析对于最近关于欧盟直接行政的行政程序编纂的机构间和学术辩论可能是富有成效的,这两次辩论都没有系统和全面地讨论纠正程序错误的可能性和程序错误的无关性,尽管欧盟法院的判例已经达到了使之成为可能的阶段。欧洲直接行政法、程序性错误、程序性和形式性错误的后果、纠正、无关性、行政程序的编纂
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信