The Construction of Modern Administrative Law via Data Mining

Purpose. In 1999 the adoption of the General Administrative Code and Administrative Procedure Code in Georgia gave basis for creation of the new administrative law, since before the entry into force of the above-mentioned codes, Georgia had no tradition of the administrative law and, hence, no practice of the administrative justice. In Georgia being part of the Soviet Union, and in the Soviet Union overall, the administrative law did not exist with the understanding that is regulated by the modern administrative law. The communist doctrine of the administrative law radically differs from the modern administrative law because in those times the administrative legislation was mainly defining the citizens’ obligations before the administration, rather than ensuring citizens’ rights and protection of their interests. Methods. Therefore, the article discusses development stages of the administrative law, the path gone through by the administrative law starting from the formulation until present time, also the Soviet heritage and its influence on the development of the administrative law is discussed, along with the influence of the European reception and establishment within the Georgian legislation, the core factors are analyzed, which caused the necessity of the creation of new administrative law. Results. The significant part in the article is devoted to the discussion of the subject of administrative law and system of administrative law on the example of the Georgian administrative law. The core elements of the implementation of public administration are discussed, the notion of the administrative body, forms of activity of the administrative body and basic principles that are characteristic to the Georgian administrative law. Conclusions. In this regard, the important place is given to particularities of the administrative proceeding and judicial process in Georgia, namely, so called “prejudicial” rule of appealing within the administrative body, suspensive effect of the administrative appeal, principles of disposition and inquisition in the administrative process, as well as the institute of the amicus curiae is discussed, as a particularity of the Georgian administrative justice.

In terms of principle, the intrinsic structural elements of the academic system of Chinese administrative law can be divided into three components: the positive law (de lege lata) system, the theoretical system and the system of methodology. As the foundation of the academic system, positive law mainly consists of the normative and institutional systems of administrative law; as the heart of the academic system, the theoretical system contains the theoretical basis, the system of basic principles and the system of categories of administrative law; and the system of methodology is the link and the conversion mechanism between positive law and the theoretical system, including the three research methods of politico-legal jurisprudence, Rechtsdogmatik (legal dogmatics) and social science jurisprudence. Along with institutional practice and the deepening of doctrine over the past thirty years since the promulgation of the Administrative Procedure Law (1989), the academic system of administrative law in China has been maturing. However, we are conscious that problems still exist. The basic approach to achieving further innovation includes advancing the construction of basic administrative law through codification; enhancing academic quality by jurisprudential thinking; shaping Chinese characteristics by rule of law practice; and carrying forward the whole academic system in a complete form.

The paper examines the administrative and legal provision of administrative conflict and non-conflict proceedings in comparison with the experience of Germany. It has been proven that the integration of Ukraine into the European legal space requires a full-scale reform of the legal system based on the principles and standards formed at the panEuropean level. It is extremely necessary to take into account international and European standards when carrying out reforms in public administration, as well as take into account theoretical provisions, doctrines and positive practical experience of foreign countries in the field of administrative conflict proceedings. The initiated administrative-judicial reform, the development of a regulatory framework for the regulation of administrative proceedings, should take place taking into account the EU standards of administrative justice aimed at the settlement of conflict proceedings. The implementation of the experience of European countries in conflict administrative proceedings will not only contribute to the improvement of domestic legislation but will also ensure close correspondence with the EU. The author suggests using Germany’s experience regarding legislation and proceedings in cases of administrative offenses. In the scientific literature, there are different approaches to defining the concept of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, but in general, researchers agree on the general features of such proceedings and point out that this is a special type of procedural activity, which is regulated by the norms of administrative procedural law, which is carried out by authorized administrative jurisdictional powers of special subjects of public administration regarding consideration and resolution of cases of administrative offenses. Among researchers, there is no unity in views on the classification of administrative proceedings. This is not surprising, since there are a significant number of views on the list of principles for the classification of administrative proceedings. We adhere to the classification of conflict and non-conflict administrative proceedings. Germany’s experience has shown that effective means of administrative protection can be provided through various judicial or legal systems. In the end, it all comes down to having sufficient resources, a stable legal framework and institutions, and training. A separate system of administrative justice by itself will certainly not solve problems in the field of administrative justice. Therefore, today, the Ukrainian legislator has no other way to solve the problem, how to build its autonomous system of administrative law, taking into account both the experience of Ukrainian administrative law from the time of the Ukrainian SSR, and the achievements and mistakes of the EU countries. Key words: administrative law, administrative process, administrative proceedings, conflicting administrative proceedings, administrative law of foreign countries, administrative law of EU countries, administrative and legal support.

The process of Ukraine's integration into the European Union necessitates the harmonization of the national administrative and legal system with European standards. One of the most developed and influential models of administrative law in Europe is the French one, which combines an effective institutional structure of public administration, effective mechanisms for protecting citizens' rights and economic feasibility of regulation. Analysis of the French experience is especially important for Ukraine in the context of public administration reform, decentralization and increasing transparency of government activities. Therefore, the study of the economic and legal foundations of the Europeanization of administrative law of Ukraine through the prism of the French model is relevant both in scientific and practical terms, as it contributes to the formation of an effective, accountable and citizen-oriented public administration. The purpose of the study is to analyze the economic and legal foundations of French administrative law and determine the possibilities of their adaptation for the harmonization of the administrative and legal system of Ukraine with the standards of the European Union. The research methodology consists of comparative legal, empirical and formal-dogmatic methods, as well as induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis methods, which together provide a comprehensive and systematic study. The article analyzes the economic and legal foundations of the Europeanization of administrative law in Ukraine through the prism of the French administrative law system. In particular, a comparative analysis of the French and Ukrainian administrative law systems is carried out in order to identify European trends that shape the legal architecture of Ukrainian administrative law in the context of European integration. The authors state that although French administrative law has a tradition of over two hundred years, and Ukrainian administrative law has only begun to be institutionally formed since the 1990s, both systems tend to share common principles of the rule of law, public accountability and effective administration. It is emphasized that in France there is no formal distinction of administrative law into general and special, instead there is a substantive differentiation into institutional and functional areas - administrative police, public enterprises, healthcare, security, civil service, etc. In Ukraine, on the contrary, a clear distinction has been introduced into general, special and special administrative law, which corresponds to the structure of national legislation and the practice of its codification. It is emphasized that the French system is based on the case law of the French Council of State, while the Ukrainian one is based on codified administrative proceedings. The generalization of the results of the comparison indicates the gradual Europeanization of Ukrainian administrative law through the implementation of both regulatory and institutional principles of public administration. The French experience serves as a guideline for improving the Ukrainian administrative model, ensuring compliance with European Union standards and developing the doctrinal basis of national law.

There is an increasing interest in the category of “public administration” in Russian administrative law. The article argues for the development of this category’s comprehensive concept that would meet the needs of the Russian legal system’s modern advancement. The article considers the theoretical grounds for this concept in pre-Soviet administrative law, and diring the Soviet period. The authors reveal the category’s essential features, after analyzing contemporary Russian researchers’ ideas regarding its role and significance in dynamic Russian administrative law. Approaches to conceptualizing public administration in Russian and foreign administrative law are considered in the article and the authors contemplate the necessity and possibility of providing an integrative definition of this category as the basic concept of administrative law. Public administration is mapped within such concepts as executive and administrative power, government, state and municipal administration, public administration and governance. Public administration and governance are rationalized as paired categories within Russian administrative law theory. Within the framework of comparative law, the approaches to classifying the forms of public administration activities related to the implementation of administrative functions are analyzed. On the basis of the analysis, it is proposed to identify such forms of activities as intervening and facilitating public administration as well as public administration through services provision. The paper further considers specific features of public administration’s organizational structure and its types in the modern state. The authors conclude on the feasibility of developing and adopting a law on the federal public administration, and, on the basis of this law, to pass the regional legislative acts on the public administration entities of the Russian Federation.

The work proves that Ukraine’s integration into the European legal space requires a full-scale legal system reform based on the principles and standards formed at the pan-European level. It is extremely necessary to take into account international and European standards when carrying out reforms in public administration in Ukraine, as well as take into account theoretical provisions, doctrines, and positive practical experience of foreign states in the field of administrative conflict proceedings. The administrative-judicial reform announced by the President of Ukraine and the development of the normative framework for the regulation of administrative proceedings is taking place while considering international and European standards of administrative justice aimed at the settlement of conflict proceedings. The analysis of foreign doctrine and legislation in the field of administrative responsibility indicates the absence of a single model of legal regulation of this institution in foreign countries, where in some countries, it is part of criminal legislation, while in others, it is an entirely different sphere of legal regulation. In order to improve conflict legal proceedings, it is expedient to pay more attention to the international experience of regulating administrative proceedings. Despite the different attitudes to administrative and tort legislation in various countries, each country has its own important experience in conducting cases. It is possible to describe the following features of the systematization of legislation on administrative responsibility: some countries are focused on decodification, while others are moving toward adopting a single codified act. Also, quite often, we can observe differences in jurisdictional administrative procedures in foreign countries. However, the implementation of the experience of European countries in conflict proceedings will not only contribute to the improvement of domestic legislation but will also ensure close cooperation with the EU. The author proposes to use the experience of foreign countries regarding the expansion of the range of subjects of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses since, in most countries, legal entities can be brought to administrative responsibility on an equal basis with individuals. In this way, administrative justice would contribute to the strengthening of law and order in the state of Ukraine. Administrative justice is an integral feature of the rule of law state, and its creation is the task of every democratic state. Key words: administrative law, administrative process, administrative proceedings, conflicting administrative proceedings, simplified proceedings, administrative law of foreign countries, administrative law of EU countries, administrative tort law

From the perspective of English jurists, the incoming tide of Community law still carries some suspicious pieces of flotsam onto the shores of the English legal system. It may be that the origin of certain general principles of Community law has contributed to that suspicion. The principles of proportionality1 and of the protection of legitimate expectations,2 for instance, have a reputation of being 'made in Germany. ' Their claim to acceptance in English administrative law is met with reservations.3 English lawyers may in fact think that European administrative law is the Trojan horse by which a continental tradition is about to supersede well-established English principles of administrative law and judicial review. They may also legitimately ask themselves whether their system is not particularly susceptible to change, since the Common Law tradition is the exception rather than the rule in the European context. German administrative law has acquired the reputation of being influential in the shaping of the general principles of European administrative law4 as they are being developed by the European Court of Justice and also, to a certain extent, by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.5 Such a proposition, however, is difficult to prove or to disprove since it is frequently impossible to trace the origins of rules directly.6 In one or other form, other national systems of administrative law also know the concepts and principles which are at issue here. It is quite obvious, however, that these principles have acquired a particular significance and an extraordinary legal force in Germany. For these reasons, this article adopts an indirect approach. In Part One, some important principles of European administrative law are analysed in order to determine whether they have an equivalent in German administrative law. The relevant differences between these two systems and the system of English administrative law are also examined. Part Two attempts to explain why some of

During the last three decades administrative law in the United Kingdom has been transformed. In 1963 Lord Reid expressed the view that ‘we do not have a developed system of administrative law ‘. Indeed the third edition of Halsbury ‘s Laws of England, published in 1959, still had no separate entry for administrative law. However, in 1981 Lord Diplock spoke of ‘that progress towards a comprehensive system of administrative law ‘ which he regarded as having been ‘the greatest achievement ‘ of the English courts in his judicial life-time. A cursory glance at recent law reports indicates that developments are continuing unabated. The ambit of judicial review has expanded significantly in recent years. A remedy which was once limited to controlling the acts of central and local government now covers the activities of many non-governmental bodies and extends into the commercial world.

The paper attempts to theoretically substantiate a new legal institution in the system of administrative law, which requires independent scientific understanding. The author identifies the essential features of the moratorial administrative law regime, allowing to determine its place and purpose in the system of administrative law regulation. In the process of analyzing the urgent legal norms adopted in the Russian Federation in recent years, it has been established that many administrative law institutions are implemented within the framework of the moratorium regime. One of them is the Institute of expertise in the field of public administration. On the one hand, examination as a professional tool for assessing legally significant circumstances and facts necessary for making a public management decision provides an additional safeguard of compliance with the interests of the state, society and the individual in the implementation of economic or other activities. On the other hand, it acts as an administrative barrier, the overcoming of which requires additional time, labor, and financial costs from the participants of legal relations. In this regard, the establishment of moratorium measures in the implementation of the institute of expertise in the field of public administration should be recognized as justified in emergency conditions. Special attention is paid to the characteristics of the main types of the moratorium in the field of state expert activity.

The scientific article is devoted to the study of the legal status of subjects of administrative proceedings. The article examines scientific and legal approaches to the definition of the concept of "subject of administrative proceedings", analyzes the criteria for the classification of subjects in administrative proceedings. The legal status of subjects who are participants in administrative proceedings depends directly on its legislative definition, but the mechanisms of its implementation are related to the functional features of the subjects of judicial review of administrative cases. The establishment of the system of subjects of administrative procedural law is ensured by the corresponding systemic legal regulation in the legislation. In the science of national administrative law, there are different views on the system of subjects of administrative law and administrative proceedings. It is emphasized that the participants in the administrative process according to the instructions of the CAS of Ukraine, depending on their interest, are divided into persons who conduct the judicial process (directly the administrative court), participate in the case (parties, third parties, representatives of the parties and third parties) and other participants (witness, expert, specialist, etc.). Also, the system of subjects of administrative proceedings can be divided into individual and collective subjects. The most logical, in our opinion, is the classification of all subjects of administrative procedural legal relations into three groups: courts that administer justice; persons participating in the case; persons who assist in the administration of justice. It was concluded that in each of the listed cases, the administrative-legal status of an individual subject as a participant in administrative proceedings has its own specificity, due to the functional affiliation performed by the subject during the implementation of administrative proceedings.

Global Administrative Law: The Key Aspects of Conceptualizing

The JUSTICE/All Souls Review Committee is best described as an unofficial Royal Commission. Its origins can be traced to a seminar organized beneath the ivory towers of All Souls College, Oxford in 1966. Remember that this was a period of lack of faith in British constitutional institutions when influential writers were expressing concern over the absence of a systematized and systematic adminis- trative law in the United Kingdom.1 While the (supposed) logic and syfnmetry of French administrative law was an attraction, a second and perhaps more important concern was undoubtedly the escalating process of centralization and executive dominance in British government.2 Some commentators saw or thought they saw the rebirth of Lord Hewart's 'New Despotism'. The creation of a strong system of administrative law with judicial review as its focal point seemed essential if this tendency were to be halted. Government, however, did not share this nightmare vision of a state out of control. Thus the Lord Chancellor's riposte to the Law Commission's proposal for an overall survey of the system of administrative law was to authorize a study of the existing remedies for judicial control of administrative action3--clearly by no means the same thing. Note that it was finally left to the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court to implement even these modest reforms through amendments to Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and that it was the judiciary and not government which went on to create a separate identity for 'public law' in terms of the new Order.4

The EU Services Directive (SD) is a centrepiece for the realisation of the Internal Market in the services sector aiming at considerably lowering the barriers for service provision in the EU. This chapter therefore analyses the transposition and implementation of the requirements of the SD into the national (administrative) law system of Estonia. This chapter treats all relevant requirements of the SD, such as the Point of Single Contact (POSC), the screening of national law according to the requirements of the SD, the adaption of authorisation schemes for service provision, the requirement of ‘tacit authorisation’, and the need for new rules on administrative cooperation. Finally an assessment of the impact of the SD on the national (administrative) law system is provided.KeywordsSingle Point Of Contact (POSC)Tacit AuthorisationAdministrative CooperationDomestic Service ProvidersSimple NotificationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Right to Be Taken Seriously

This paper explores the existing contradictions between the scientific terminology and the terminology of legislation regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process. It is noted that acquaintance with the scientific and educational- methodological literature shows that even today there is no clear justification of the relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant of administrative process”. The main reason for this state of affairs is due to differences in the laws of development of national administrative procedural legislation and the laws of development of science of administrative procedural law. It is concluded that there is a long-standing need to offer the scientific community and practitioners such a concept of relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant in administrative process”, which would reconcile the contradictions of the otological and epistemological terminology used in the CAS. The necessity to use in the science of administrative law and process justifies the concept according to which the administrative process should be considered as law enforcement activity of administrative courts related to the consideration and resolution of public law disputes. In such a case, the administrative court will always be the subject of the administrative court, whereas the parties, third parties, representatives, assistant judge, court secretary, court administrator, witness, expert, law expert, translator, specialist are only participants in the administrative process that is, persons involved in the enforcement of administrative law.