ապահՈՎՄանինսՏԻՏՈՒՏԻ առանձնհաատկՈՒթյՈՒներըՎԻՃարկմանհայՑԻ հԻՄան ՎՐ ահՐՈՒՑՎածԳՈՐծեՐՈՎ

GOHAR AVAGYAN
{"title":"ապահՈՎՄանինսՏԻՏՈՒՏԻ առանձնհաատկՈՒթյՈՒներըՎԻՃարկմանհայՑԻ հԻՄան ՎՐ ահՐՈՒՑՎածԳՈՐծեՐՈՎ","authors":"GOHAR AVAGYAN","doi":"10.59546/18290744-2023.4-9-43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the effective methods stipulated by the legislation, which ensures the implementation of judicial decisions, is by establishing a distinct mechanism for securing rights during administrative proceedings. This mechanism, referred to as “preliminary protection of rights,” operates separately from the method used to secure claims. The latter method is applicable only to three specific types of claims and does not extend to dispute claims. Notably, this study focuses on the suspension of administrative acts as a unique form of preliminary protection. It sheds light on the distinctions between this suspension and the general claim securing process. Furthermore, it underscores legislative strategies, identifies legal gaps in the current framework, and suggests legal remedies. The research explores the differences between suspending the execution of an administrative act and suspending its operation. It emphasizes the necessity of empowering courts to employ protective measures while investigating the factual context of a case, guided by terms such as “significant damage,” “reasonable doubt,” and “ impossibility of rights protection.” The interpretation of these terms forms the foundation for suspending administrative acts. The investigation delves into varying interpretations of the term “impossibility” and advocates for uniformity in its application. It also delves into instances where immediate execution of administrative acts is mandated, both as a legal requirement and as a rationale for their swift execution by administrative bodies. This analysis considers the interplay between public and private interests in these scenarios. In this pursuit, the study draws insights from international practices, as well as domestic legislative and judicial experiences. It pinpoints legal gaps and introduces potential legal remedies within this framework.","PeriodicalId":174588,"journal":{"name":"Դատական իշխանություն / Judicial Power","volume":"2014 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ԱՊԱՀՈՎՄԱՆ ԻՆՍՏԻՏՈՒՏԻ ԱՌԱՆՁՆԱՀԱՏԿՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐԸ ՎԻՃԱՐԿՄԱՆ ՀԱՅՑԻ ՀԻՄԱՆ ՎՐԱ ՀԱՐՈՒՑՎԱԾ ԳՈՐԾԵՐՈՎ\",\"authors\":\"GOHAR AVAGYAN\",\"doi\":\"10.59546/18290744-2023.4-9-43\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the effective methods stipulated by the legislation, which ensures the implementation of judicial decisions, is by establishing a distinct mechanism for securing rights during administrative proceedings. This mechanism, referred to as “preliminary protection of rights,” operates separately from the method used to secure claims. The latter method is applicable only to three specific types of claims and does not extend to dispute claims. Notably, this study focuses on the suspension of administrative acts as a unique form of preliminary protection. It sheds light on the distinctions between this suspension and the general claim securing process. Furthermore, it underscores legislative strategies, identifies legal gaps in the current framework, and suggests legal remedies. The research explores the differences between suspending the execution of an administrative act and suspending its operation. It emphasizes the necessity of empowering courts to employ protective measures while investigating the factual context of a case, guided by terms such as “significant damage,” “reasonable doubt,” and “ impossibility of rights protection.” The interpretation of these terms forms the foundation for suspending administrative acts. The investigation delves into varying interpretations of the term “impossibility” and advocates for uniformity in its application. It also delves into instances where immediate execution of administrative acts is mandated, both as a legal requirement and as a rationale for their swift execution by administrative bodies. This analysis considers the interplay between public and private interests in these scenarios. In this pursuit, the study draws insights from international practices, as well as domestic legislative and judicial experiences. It pinpoints legal gaps and introduces potential legal remedies within this framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":174588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Դատական իշխանություն / Judicial Power\",\"volume\":\"2014 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Դատական իշխանություն / Judicial Power\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2023.4-9-43\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Դատական իշխանություն / Judicial Power","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2023.4-9-43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

立法规定的确保司法决定得到执行的有效方法之一是建立一种在行政诉讼中保障权利的独特机制。这一机制被称为“初步权利保护”,与确保索赔的方法是分开运作的。后一种方法只适用于三种特定类型的索赔,并不适用于有争议的索赔。值得注意的是,本研究的重点是行政行为中止作为一种独特的初步保护形式。它阐明了这种暂停和一般索赔确保过程之间的区别。此外,它还强调了立法战略,确定了现行框架中的法律空白,并提出了法律补救办法。本研究探讨了行政行为中止执行与行政行为中止运行的区别。它强调有必要授权法院在调查案件的事实背景时采取保护措施,以“重大损害”、“合理怀疑”和“不可能保护权利”等术语为指导。这些条款的解释构成了中止行政行为的基础。该调查深入探讨了对“不可能”一词的不同解释,并主张在其应用中保持统一。报告还探讨了要求立即执行行政行为的情况,这既是一项法律要求,也是行政机构迅速执行行政行为的理由。该分析考虑了在这些情况下公共利益和私人利益之间的相互作用。在此过程中,本研究借鉴了国际实践以及国内立法和司法经验。它指出了法律空白,并在此框架内介绍了潜在的法律补救措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ԱՊԱՀՈՎՄԱՆ ԻՆՍՏԻՏՈՒՏԻ ԱՌԱՆՁՆԱՀԱՏԿՈՒԹՅՈՒՆՆԵՐԸ ՎԻՃԱՐԿՄԱՆ ՀԱՅՑԻ ՀԻՄԱՆ ՎՐԱ ՀԱՐՈՒՑՎԱԾ ԳՈՐԾԵՐՈՎ
One of the effective methods stipulated by the legislation, which ensures the implementation of judicial decisions, is by establishing a distinct mechanism for securing rights during administrative proceedings. This mechanism, referred to as “preliminary protection of rights,” operates separately from the method used to secure claims. The latter method is applicable only to three specific types of claims and does not extend to dispute claims. Notably, this study focuses on the suspension of administrative acts as a unique form of preliminary protection. It sheds light on the distinctions between this suspension and the general claim securing process. Furthermore, it underscores legislative strategies, identifies legal gaps in the current framework, and suggests legal remedies. The research explores the differences between suspending the execution of an administrative act and suspending its operation. It emphasizes the necessity of empowering courts to employ protective measures while investigating the factual context of a case, guided by terms such as “significant damage,” “reasonable doubt,” and “ impossibility of rights protection.” The interpretation of these terms forms the foundation for suspending administrative acts. The investigation delves into varying interpretations of the term “impossibility” and advocates for uniformity in its application. It also delves into instances where immediate execution of administrative acts is mandated, both as a legal requirement and as a rationale for their swift execution by administrative bodies. This analysis considers the interplay between public and private interests in these scenarios. In this pursuit, the study draws insights from international practices, as well as domestic legislative and judicial experiences. It pinpoints legal gaps and introduces potential legal remedies within this framework.
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
×
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