Issue: № 9, 2023
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2023.9.19
Introduction. As countries progress toward stronger governance, the role of administrative courts in overseeing the actions of public administration bodies has gained prominence. The balance between administrative discretion and its judicial oversight presents both a challenge and an opportunity for enhancing public trust and adherence to the rule of law. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the burgeoning influence of judicial control by administrative courts on public administration bodies, with a particular focus on Ukraine. The objective is to understand the nuances, ambiguities, and implications of this evolving relationship, in light of European standards, national legislation, and practical realities. Results. A defined framework of administrative discretion, offering public authorities a margin of appreciation while making decisions. Ambiguities in the Ukrainian legal doctrine, particularly the blurred lines between discretion and vague legal concepts. The Council of Europe standards and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law that set benchmarks for discretionary power's exercise and control. Varied approaches to judicial control among EU member states, with notable distinctions between the German and French legal traditions. A growing trend where administrative courts are intensifying scrutiny over discretionary powers, fueled by the need to uphold fundamental rights and democratic principles. Conclusion. The escalating role of administrative courts in reviewing the actions of public administration bodies reflects a move towards more transparent, accountable, and rights-respecting governance. While challenges persist, especially in distinguishing discretion from ambiguous legal terms, the trajectory points toward a future where administrative actions are both efficient and just, guided by robust judicial oversight. This evolution, grounded in both national realities and European standards, signals a maturing of democratic institutions and processes.
Keywords : judicial control, administrative courts, public administration bodies, Discretionary powers, Governance, Transparency
References:
1. Schwartz B., Wade W. Legal Control of Government: Administrative Law in Britain and the United States. Clarendon Press. 1972. 283 p.
2. Mcharg A. Administrative Discretion, Administrative Rule-Making and Judicial Review. Current Legal Problems. 2017. Vol. 70. Issue 1. pp. 267–303. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044092
3. Friedrich J. Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative responsibility. Public Policy. Cambridge, 1940. pp. 3-34.
4. Kolomoiets T.O. Administrative Law of Ukraine. Academic course. Кyiv, 2011. 40 p. (in Ukrainian).
5. Puravelli I., Gerxhi J. The necessity of creating administrative court's based on the current state of the resolution not to take administrative clothing. Albanian Journal of Legal Studies. 2011. Vol. 2. pp. 30-34.
6. Berisha K. Judge in the Basic Court in Pristina-department for administrative matters. Personal interview. 2015. URL: https://studylib.net/doc/11961624/judicial-control-of-the-administration-in-the-republic-of
7. Resolution (77) 31 on the protection of the individual in relation to the acts of administrative authorities. Council of Europe. URL: https://rm.coe.int/16804dec56