IN SEARCH OF THE SUBJECTIVE PUBLIC LAW: CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Peter Chvosta
{"title":"IN SEARCH OF THE SUBJECTIVE PUBLIC LAW: CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE","authors":"Peter Chvosta","doi":"10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose. The article is devoted to the legal figure of subjective public right in the context of legal protection in administrative matters. Methods. Based on the historical development of administrative jurisdiction in Austria and Germany in the 19th century, the function of the subjective public right is discussed in more detail: When the legislator grants citizens subjective public rights (and thus enforceable claims against the administration), the citizen can assert his or her individual interests before the courts by means of a right of defence against the state. At the same time, this results in an external legal control of the administration (compared to a mere internal administrative control by way of disciplinary measures) and thus promotes the rule of law of administrative action, which is in the public interest. Results. By pursuing his subjective public right, the citizen acting in his own interest indirectly contributes to the correct enforcement of the law. In a sense, he acts as an assistant to the public interest. The granting of a subjective public right also limits the group of persons who can take action against an administrative act, since otherwise anyone could challenge an administrative act. If the legislator has not expressly stipulated in the law which persons are entitled to a subjective public right in which respect, the determination of subjective public rights can be difficult in individual cases: When the law provides for a permit subject to certain conditions, the addressee of an administrative act is necessarily entitled to obtain a permit if the conditions required by law are met. The question is more complex in the case of persons who are not the addressee of an administrative act but who are affected by its effects. In this case, it must be determined by way of interpretation whether the legal provisions whose violation the citizen claims to have violated were passed not only to protect public interests but also, at least, in the interests of individual persons. Only then is there also a subjective public right of the individual to compliance with this provision. Conclusions. The legislator can avoid difficulties of interpretation by means of clear rules on the granting of subjective public rights. In particularly important administrative matters (e.g. approval of infrastructure projects), where the granting of subjective public rights is not sufficient to ensure judicial control of administrative acts, a larger group of persons can be granted party status.","PeriodicalId":7222,"journal":{"name":"Administrative law and process","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative law and process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2019.4.01","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

Purpose. The article is devoted to the legal figure of subjective public right in the context of legal protection in administrative matters. Methods. Based on the historical development of administrative jurisdiction in Austria and Germany in the 19th century, the function of the subjective public right is discussed in more detail: When the legislator grants citizens subjective public rights (and thus enforceable claims against the administration), the citizen can assert his or her individual interests before the courts by means of a right of defence against the state. At the same time, this results in an external legal control of the administration (compared to a mere internal administrative control by way of disciplinary measures) and thus promotes the rule of law of administrative action, which is in the public interest. Results. By pursuing his subjective public right, the citizen acting in his own interest indirectly contributes to the correct enforcement of the law. In a sense, he acts as an assistant to the public interest. The granting of a subjective public right also limits the group of persons who can take action against an administrative act, since otherwise anyone could challenge an administrative act. If the legislator has not expressly stipulated in the law which persons are entitled to a subjective public right in which respect, the determination of subjective public rights can be difficult in individual cases: When the law provides for a permit subject to certain conditions, the addressee of an administrative act is necessarily entitled to obtain a permit if the conditions required by law are met. The question is more complex in the case of persons who are not the addressee of an administrative act but who are affected by its effects. In this case, it must be determined by way of interpretation whether the legal provisions whose violation the citizen claims to have violated were passed not only to protect public interests but also, at least, in the interests of individual persons. Only then is there also a subjective public right of the individual to compliance with this provision. Conclusions. The legislator can avoid difficulties of interpretation by means of clear rules on the granting of subjective public rights. In particularly important administrative matters (e.g. approval of infrastructure projects), where the granting of subjective public rights is not sufficient to ensure judicial control of administrative acts, a larger group of persons can be granted party status.
寻求主观公法:参与行政程序的条件
目的。本文对行政事务法律保护背景下的主观公共权利的法律形象进行了探讨。基于19世纪奥地利和德国行政管辖权的历史发展,本文更详细地讨论了主观公共权利的功能:当立法者授予公民主观公共权利(从而对行政当局提出可执行的要求)时,公民可以通过对国家的辩护权在法院维护自己的个人利益。同时,这也形成了对行政的外部法律控制(相对于仅仅通过纪律措施进行的内部行政控制),从而促进了行政行为的法治化,这是符合公共利益的结果。公民通过追求自己的主观公共权利,间接地促进了法律的正确执行。从某种意义上说,他是公共利益的助手。主观公共权利的授予也限制了可以对行政行为采取行动的人的群体,因为否则任何人都可以对行政行为提出质疑。如果立法者在法律中没有明确规定哪些人有权享有主观公共权利,在个别情况下,主观公共权利的确定可能是困难的:当法律规定有一定条件的许可时,行政行为的被执行人如果符合法律规定的条件,就必然有权获得许可。对于不是行政行为的对象但受其影响的人来说,这个问题更为复杂。在这种情况下,必须通过解释来确定公民声称违反的法律规定是否不仅是为了保护公共利益,而且至少是为了保护个人的利益。只有在这种情况下,才存在个人遵守这一规定的主观公共权利。立法者可以通过明确的主观公共权利授予规则来避免解释困难。在特别重要的行政事项中(例如批准基础设施项目),如果给予主观公共权利不足以确保对行政行为的司法控制,则可以给予更多的人当事方地位。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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