Giacinto della Cananea – författare

Traditionally the issues concerning the exercise of administrative powers by public authorities were considered a type of national enclave. It was the responsibility of the state to ensure that adequate procedural safeguards were in place to prevent the government from interfering with the rights of its citizens. During the last few decades, however, a variety of sets of rules regarding procedural due process has developed to govern the conduct of those public authorities who operate on a regional or world regulatory footing, such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization. Analysing the procedural due process requirements applicable to administrative procedure beyond the borders of the States, this volume demonstrates how regional and global regulatory regimes impose requirements that are strikingly similar to those set out by the most developed legal systems of the world. The book argues that such requirements of administrative procedure are justified not only by the traditional concerns for the protection of individual interests against the misuse of power by public authorities, but also by other values, such as good governance and cooperation between public authorities. Finally, the book conceptualizes such rules as legal requirements which arbitral tribunals and other agencies should respect when interpreting standards of justice.

This series argues that there is a common administrative core to European legal systems that can be better understood in comparative terms. This volume examines government liability in tort, using case studies to explore different government responses. Part I sets the stage for the project and the parameters followed by the scholars involved. Part II expands on the legal systems chosen for comparison, setting up their general tort procedures. Part III presents case studies from Austria, the European Union, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Each case study has a theoretical response detailing what would happen should that case occur within each country's borders. Part IV compares and contrasts the information provided in Part III. It examines both the commonalities and the distinctive traits of these legal systems, with a view to understand the nature of their 'common core'. This volume is an essential tool for anyone involved in administrative and constitutional law and government liability in tort.

The second volume in this series explores the evolution of administrative laws in Europe to better understand the foundations of EU institutions, focusing on the period of 1890-1910. These years saw both a growth of governments and either the entry into force or the consolidation of mechanisms of control on public authorities. Comparing the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Belgium, France, the German Empire, Italy, and the United Kingdom, this title focuses on their historical administrative actions and looks at their development during that time.The volume contains three sections. The first introduces the project and the topic. The second covers the six legal systems chosen for this study, looking at the historical context. The third takes a comparative approach across the six systems, following on from their histories to look at their development and legacies. This edited collection expands on the ideals of a common core within European administrative law and how they have shaped our world.This volume is an essential tool for anyone involved in administrative and constitutional law and legal history.

In the field of administrative law, there is no systematic body of rules similar to those characteristic of European civil codes. General principles are therefore of fundamental importance. This volume - the sixth in the series concerning the common core of European administrative laws - explores this importance through two strands. Firstly, it examines in detail the relationship between general principles of law, such as due process, and sector-specific rules established by legislative and regulatory provisions, for example in licensing and disciplinary matters. Several questions about the nature of general principles emerge through this analysis. Are general principles about filling gaps? Or do they have a foundational role because they give meaning to the values that are shared by European legal systems, such as respect for the rule of law and for fundamental rights? Secondly, this volume also explores the interaction between commonality and diversity in European administrative law. It considers whether there are shared standards of administrative conduct, including the duty to give reasons, or if there are fundamental differences with regard to non-European legal systems, such as that of China and Venezuela. These questions are investigated through factual analysis, based on a set of hypothetical cases, which are discussed by national experts. This book then scrutinizes these questions to determine how commonality and diversity have extended and interact with one another, within and across legal systems, both diachronically and synchronically, over the course of a century. It shows that there are both unexpected areas of agreement between the European legal systems, notably concerning the right to be heard (expressed by the maxim audi alteram partem) and the duty to give reasons, and there are also areas of disagreement, for example as far as the right to remain silent vis à vis the administration (that is, nemo tenetur se detegere) is concerned.

This book is about judicial review of public administration. Many have regarded this to divide European legal orders, with judicial review of administrative action in the general courts or specialized administrative courts, or with different distance from the executive. There has been considerably less of comparison of the basic procedural and substantive principles. The comparative study in this book of procedural fairness and propriety in the courts reveals not only differences but also some common and connecting elements, in a 'common core' perspective.The book is divided into four parts. The first explains the nature and purpose of a comparison to understand the relevance and significance of commonality and diversity between the legal systems of Europe, and which considers other legal systems which are distant and distinct from Europe, such as China and Latin America. The second part contains an overview of the systems of judicial review in these legal orders. The third part, which is the heart of the 'common core' method, contains both a set of hypothetical cases and the solutions, according to the experts of the legal systems selected for our comparison, to the cases. The fourth part serves to examine the answers in comparative terms to ascertain not so much whether a 'common core' exists, but how it is shaped and evolves, also in response to the influence of supranational legal orders as the European Union and the Council of Europe.

Administrative rulemaking and planning is an under-studied and under-theorized area of public law. To better understand how administrative functions and powers are discharged by public authorities and private bodies, this seventh volume in the Common Core of European Administrative Law series argues that we must consider all forms of administrative action, not just formal procedures and judicial review. As such, greater attention needs to be paid to administrative rulemaking and planning, which have a significant impact on economics and society.Through extensive comparative research, this book examines this increasingly important field of administrative law. It focuses mainly on Europe, analysing ten national systems including eight European Union member states, Norway, and the UK, but it also explores the legal systems of the United States and China, as well as that of a non-state entity - the European Union itself.The questions investigated across these systems include whether administrative agencies may fetter their discretion through policy and rules, whether their rules must be published, and what remedies are available when plans adversely impact individual rights. These questions are examined through a factual analysis based on a set of ten hypothetical cases, which are discussed by national experts.This comparative approach identifies commonalities and differences between legal systems, such as in consultation and transparency, in the rights of public service users, and in legal remedies to address rules and plans. As in other volumes in the series, both similarity and difference are essential to understanding how a 'common core' is shaped and evolves.

This book argues that the development of administrative law in Europe owes much to Austria, not only because its Administrative Court was one of the first to define and refine general principles, such as legality, due process and general interest, but also because in 1925 Austria adopted a general law of administrative procedure, which had important consequences for other legal systems. The book follows two themes. The first is the Austrian codification of administrative procedure itself. The second is the spread of Austrian ideas and institutions to some neighbouring countries. From the first point of view, the book points out the various factors that favoured the adoption of administrative procedure legislation and the reception of the model of review. In this respect, the book is enriched by the English translation of the Austrian general act of 1925. From the other viewpoint, the book deviates from the standard accounts whereby the Austrian codification had some influence on its closest neighbours, including Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; first, because it compares their legislative provisions, as well as their durability, notwithstanding drastic political changes, when these countries fell under Soviet rule; second, because it does not limit itself to the concept of 'influence', arguing that there was a 'diffusion' of general administrative procedure legislation; thirdly, because it examines why the major administrative systems of continental Europe, such as France, Germany and Italy, did not adopt administrative procedure legislation. The book thus provides an unprecedented outlook on the emergence of an increasing common core regarding administrative procedure.

This Handbook uses a thematic and interdisciplinary approach to discuss and analyse the various governance structures of the EU, focusing in particular on how these are administered. Key chapters, written by leading experts across the field, engage with important ongoing debates in the field of EU administrative law, focusing on areas of topical interest such as financial markets, the growing security state and problematic common asylum procedures. In doing so, they provide a summary of what we know, don't know and ought to know about EU administrative law. Examining the control functions of administrative law and the machinery for accountability, this Research Handbook eloquently challenges areas of authoritarian governance, such as the Eurozone and security state, where control and accountability are weak and tackles the seemingly insoluble question of citizen 'voice' and access to policy making. Practical and engaging, this timely Research Handbook is sure to appeal to scholars and researchers of EU administrative law and EU law more broadly. Legal practitioners and EU policy makers will also benefit from its high level of engagement with contemporary deliberations.Contributors include: V. Abazi, M. Baran, T.A. Börzel, K. Bradley, A. Brenninkmeijer, E. Chiti, D. Curtin, H. Darbishire, M. de Visser, G. della Cananea, M. Everson, J. Grimheden, E. Guild, C. Harlow, E.G. Heidbreder, H. Hofmann, C. Joerges, M. Kjaerum, P. Leino, L. Leppavirta, I. Maher, J. Mendes, L. Muzi, N. Póltorak, T. Raunio, R. Rawlings, M. Ruffert, J.-P. Schneider, C. Scott, G. Toggenburg

Though European administrative laws have gained global significance in the last few decades, research which provides both theoretical analysis and original empirical research has been scarce. This book offers an important account of the evolution of judicial review and administrative procedure legislation, using a factual analysis to shed light on how the different legal systems react to similar problems. Discussing the concept of a ‘common core’, Giacinto della Cananea reveals the commonalities in, and differences between, the foundational assumptions of European administrative adjudication and rule-making.