监管机构决策司法审查的实证研究对监管机构和被监管方有何启示?克罗地亚的案例

Q1 Social Sciences
Ivana Bajakić, Veseljka Kos
{"title":"监管机构决策司法审查的实证研究对监管机构和被监管方有何启示?克罗地亚的案例","authors":"Ivana Bajakić, Veseljka Kos","doi":"10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine regulatory agencies and regulated parties in an empirical study of administrative disputes initiated against the decisions of regulatory agencies in Croatia. We first aim to provide an overview of the status and trend estimates regarding these disputes; second, to answer the question how well does the system work from the perspectives of both the plaintiffs and the regulatory agencies; third, to identify the problem areas and to compare these with problem areas identified by the authors studying the broader area of administrative judiciary in Croatia, and finally to compare efficiency level of regulatory agencies to other public authorities in confirming the legality of their decisions and actions. Data on all administrative disputes against 12 Croatian regulatory agencies’ decisions in the 17-year period between 1995 and 2011 are used to identify the main characteristics and trends relating to these disputes. Data for 2012 to 2013 was also examined to identify initial changes and emerging trends in the new administrative judiciary system resulting from fundamental legal reform as part of Croatia’s process of accession to the European Union in 2013. The results show these administrative disputes to be often costly and timely with modest outcome for the plaintiff and impressive success rate for the most of regulatory agencies.","PeriodicalId":38545,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","volume":"10 1","pages":"22 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Can We Learn About Regulatory Agencies and Regulated Parties from the Empirical Study of Judicial Review of Regulatory Agencies’ Decisions? The Case of Croatia\",\"authors\":\"Ivana Bajakić, Veseljka Kos\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine regulatory agencies and regulated parties in an empirical study of administrative disputes initiated against the decisions of regulatory agencies in Croatia. We first aim to provide an overview of the status and trend estimates regarding these disputes; second, to answer the question how well does the system work from the perspectives of both the plaintiffs and the regulatory agencies; third, to identify the problem areas and to compare these with problem areas identified by the authors studying the broader area of administrative judiciary in Croatia, and finally to compare efficiency level of regulatory agencies to other public authorities in confirming the legality of their decisions and actions. Data on all administrative disputes against 12 Croatian regulatory agencies’ decisions in the 17-year period between 1995 and 2011 are used to identify the main characteristics and trends relating to these disputes. Data for 2012 to 2013 was also examined to identify initial changes and emerging trends in the new administrative judiciary system resulting from fundamental legal reform as part of Croatia’s process of accession to the European Union in 2013. The results show these administrative disputes to be often costly and timely with modest outcome for the plaintiff and impressive success rate for the most of regulatory agencies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"22 - 34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cejpp-2016-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要本文的目的是在克罗地亚对监管机构的决定发起的行政纠纷的实证研究中检查监管机构和被监管方。我们首先旨在概述这些争议的现状和趋势估计;其次,从原告和监管机构的角度回答这个问题,即该制度的运作情况如何;第三,查明问题领域,并将其与研究克罗地亚行政司法更广泛领域的作者所查明的问题领域进行比较,最后将管制机构在确认其决定和行动的合法性方面的效率水平与其他公共当局进行比较。在1995年至2011年的17年期间,针对12个克罗地亚监管机构决定的所有行政纠纷的数据被用来确定与这些纠纷有关的主要特征和趋势。还审查了2012年至2013年的数据,以确定作为克罗地亚2013年加入欧洲联盟进程的一部分的基本法律改革所产生的新行政司法系统的初步变化和新趋势。结果表明,这些行政纠纷往往代价高昂且及时,原告的结果一般,而大多数监管机构的成功率却令人印象深刻。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Can We Learn About Regulatory Agencies and Regulated Parties from the Empirical Study of Judicial Review of Regulatory Agencies’ Decisions? The Case of Croatia
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine regulatory agencies and regulated parties in an empirical study of administrative disputes initiated against the decisions of regulatory agencies in Croatia. We first aim to provide an overview of the status and trend estimates regarding these disputes; second, to answer the question how well does the system work from the perspectives of both the plaintiffs and the regulatory agencies; third, to identify the problem areas and to compare these with problem areas identified by the authors studying the broader area of administrative judiciary in Croatia, and finally to compare efficiency level of regulatory agencies to other public authorities in confirming the legality of their decisions and actions. Data on all administrative disputes against 12 Croatian regulatory agencies’ decisions in the 17-year period between 1995 and 2011 are used to identify the main characteristics and trends relating to these disputes. Data for 2012 to 2013 was also examined to identify initial changes and emerging trends in the new administrative judiciary system resulting from fundamental legal reform as part of Croatia’s process of accession to the European Union in 2013. The results show these administrative disputes to be often costly and timely with modest outcome for the plaintiff and impressive success rate for the most of regulatory agencies.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of Public Policy (CEJPP) is an open-access, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal with primary focus upon analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of public policy. The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges. The aim of the CEJPP is to provide academic scholars and professionals in different policy fields with the latest theoretical and methodological advancements in public policy supported by sound empirical research. The CEJPP addresses all topics of public policy including social services and healthcare, environmental protection, education, labour market, immigration, security, public financing and budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurements, governance and others. It attempts to find a balance between description, explanation and evaluation of public policies and encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. Although the journal focuses primarily upon Central Europe, relevant contributions from other geographical areas are also welcomed in order to enhance public policy research in Central Europe.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信