Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F18%3A10387179" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/18:10387179 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Administrative courts at the onset of the new century face the challenge of ever-changing legislation. Frequent amendments do solve some gaps but create even more gaps which have to be filled by the courts. In the Czech Republic relative ease of judicial review by the courts of first instance and the wide open access to the Supreme Administrative Court mean that many administrative cases are resolved in four instances - two instances of administrative proceedings and additional two instances of judicial proceedings. All these things considered, it is not surprising that neither legal scholarship nor case law defines any general concept of judicial deference (or self-restraint) to the administration. Various areas of public law contain some expressions of judicial deference (most notably the limitation of judicial review of administrative discretion and subsidiarity of judicial review). Nevertheless, both case law and scholarship are far from subsuming these concepts under the common label of &quot;judicial deference to the administration&quot;. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the notion of judicial deference in the Czech Republic as well as some prospects in this field.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic

Popis výsledku anglicky

Administrative courts at the onset of the new century face the challenge of ever-changing legislation. Frequent amendments do solve some gaps but create even more gaps which have to be filled by the courts. In the Czech Republic relative ease of judicial review by the courts of first instance and the wide open access to the Supreme Administrative Court mean that many administrative cases are resolved in four instances - two instances of administrative proceedings and additional two instances of judicial proceedings. All these things considered, it is not surprising that neither legal scholarship nor case law defines any general concept of judicial deference (or self-restraint) to the administration. Various areas of public law contain some expressions of judicial deference (most notably the limitation of judicial review of administrative discretion and subsidiarity of judicial review). Nevertheless, both case law and scholarship are far from subsuming these concepts under the common label of &quot;judicial deference to the administration&quot;. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the notion of judicial deference in the Czech Republic as well as some prospects in this field.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA16-22016S" target="_blank" >GA16-22016S: Právní jednání a odpovědnost právnických osob</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

The Lawyer Quarterly

ISSN

1805-8396

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

8

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

348-366

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85061854054