THE RIGHT TO GOOD ADMINISTRATION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON: EU EXPERIENCE

Keywords: human and citizen rights; constitutional status of a person; government, governance; administration; good governance; good administration, European Union.

Abstract

Introduction. The research of domestic lawyers in the field of good governance is largely focused on the organization of the public power apparatus, while the "human dimension" mostly remains outside the boundaries of scientific discourse, which does not correspond to the challenges facing Ukraine in the context of European integration of work. In general, reforms in the field of public administration should receive a clearer humanistic orientation, for which it is necessary to translate them into the plane of the legal status of a person. One of the important tasks on this path is the adoption into the national legal system of the right to proper administration, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Such a reception requires a proper doctrinal basis. The purpose of this article is to determine the right of legal nature to proper administration, its content and scope, its place in the system of fundamental rights of a person, as well as its relationship with the concepts of appropriate management and proper administration.

Summary of the main results of the study. The functioning of the administration (first of all, the executive power and its subsystems, as well as local self-government bodies) is fundamental for determining the quality of the democratic system as a whole. In general, we can say that the quality of administrative functioning is achieved by proper administrative practice (which includes the observance of fundamental rights) or, conversely, by the presence of improper management.

Proper administration developed in administrative-legal theory and practice within the framework of the general concept of proper administration, which includes effective and democratic power with the simultaneous implementation of public interests and guaranteed rights of the parties to defense in administrative cases. The principle of proper administration arose in the case law of the EU Court and the Court of First Instance and is based on the existence of the Union, which governs the rule of law and puts forward criteria for the quality of the functioning of the official apparatus.

For the first time at the regulatory and legal level, the right to proper administration was enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. This document is innovative as per the list of rights that are fixed in it. The adoption of the Charter can be seen as a decisive step in the codification of the right to proper administration of EU constitutional law. This right applies not only to EU citizens, but to any person who contacts the relevant institutions.

There is no clear definition of the principle of proper administration in EU legislation. This concept has been repeatedly used by both the Court of First Instance and the ECJ, but the case law still does not have a clear form. Under these conditions, the specific content of the right to proper administration is largely determined by the precedent practice of EU courts. At the same time, the content and scope of the right to proper administration under Article 41 of the CSCE is significantly different from what is covered by the concept of proper administration.

Conclusions. The concept of proper administration is derived from the concept of proper management and is its continuation in the procedural aspects of the activities of public authorities, especially those exercising executive and administrative powers. The right to proper administration is based on the concept of proper administration and represents the integration of this concept into the foundations of a person's legal status. In the most general plan, the right to proper administration can be understood as a metanorm, which, on the one hand, recognizes a person's subjective right to be properly administered, and on the other hand, requires those in power to respect human rights and fulfill the relevant requirements under time of conducting public affairs. Ordinary citizens are not passive recipients of decisions and actions by the government, but instead have claims to be governed in a certain way that promotes the realization of human rights.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU became the first constitutional-legal document in the world, which officially recognized and established the right to proper administration as an integral element of the foundations of a person's legal status. However, the drafters of the Charter approached the normative consolidation of this right very pragmatically: Article 41 included only those substantive elements of this right that are procedural in nature and can be protected by applying to jurisdictional bodies. The content and scope of the right to proper administration is constantly clarified and specified by the precedent practice of EU judicial institutions and has a tendency to expand.

The powers provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU apply only to EU subjects, but member states also recognize and ensure the right to proper administration at the level of national legislation. Ukraine, as a candidate state for EU membership, although it does not use the term "proper administration" in its national legal system, it is already trying to implement the corresponding concept in administrative legislation. At the same time, the issue of official recognition of the right to proper administration in Ukraine as one of the main political rights of Ukrainian citizens remains unresolved.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Tetyana Kaganovska, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Rector V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Doctor of Law, Professor,

Honored lawyer of Ukraine

Vitalii Serohin, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

Professor of Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law
Doctor of Science (Law), Full Professor
Svobody Square, 4, Kharkiv, 61022, Ukraine
v.a.seryogin@karazin.ua

References

Levitsky S. First Take: Paradoxes of Peruvian Democracy. Political bust amid economic boom? ReVista. Harvard Review of Latin America. 2014. Vol. XIV. № 1. URL: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/first-take-paradoxes-of-peruvian-democracy-revista/

Addink H. Democracy and Good Governance. In: H. Addink (Ed.), Good Governance: Concept and Context (pp. 91-96). Oxford, United Kingdom; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198841159.003.0006

Herasymiuk K., Martselyak O., Kirichenko Y., Zhmur N., Shmalenko I. Principles of integrity and good governance in public administration. International Journal of Management. 2020. Vol.11. Issue 4. P. 545-555. URL: t http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=11&Issue=4

Kovač P., Tomaževič N., Leben A., Aristovnik A. Reforming public administration in Slovenia: between theory and practice of good governance and good administration. International Journal of Public Policy. 2016. Vol. 12, Nos. 3/4/5/6. Р. 130-148.

Korpić I. Good administration and good governance as the key elements of the European administrative space. URL: https://www.academia.edu/10728682/GOOD_ADMINISTRATION_AND_GOOD_GOVERNANCE_AS_THE_KEY_ELEMENTS_OF_THE_EUROPEAN_ADMINISTRATIVE_SPACE

Reif L.C. The Ombudsman, good governance and the international human rights system. Springer, 2004. 444 p.

Becht M., Bolton P., Röell A. Corporate Governance and Control. Handbook of the Economics of Finance. Vol. 1, Part A. / ed. by G. M. Constantinides, M.Harris, R.M. Stulz. Amsterdam: Elsevir, 2003. P. 1-109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01005-7 .

Srivastava M. Good governance ‒ concept, meaning and features: a detailed study. December 26, 2009. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1528449.

Levi-Faur D. Oxford Handbook of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 803 р.

Bartolini S. New Modes of European Governance: An Introduction. New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy / A. Heritier, M. Rhodes (eds). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. P. 1-18.

Governance and development. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. Brussels, 20.10.2003 COM(2003) 615 final. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0615:FIN:EN:PDF

Shapiro M. Administrative law unbounded: Reflections on government and governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2001. Volume 8. Issue 2. Р. 369-377.

The SAGE Handbook of Governance / Bevir, M. (ed.). Los Angeles: Sage, 2011. 576 p.

Bakhov S. Dialogue of cultures in multicultural education. World Appliated Sciences Journal. 2014. Vol. 29(1). P. 106-109. URL: https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.29.01.13775

Public sector management, governance and sustainable human development. United Nations Development Programme (1996). URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1488267

Governance for sustainable human development : a UNDP policy document (1997). URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/492551?v=pdf .

United Nations Development Programme (1997). URL: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/262370?v=pdf

Worldwide Governance (2014). Available at: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home (Access on January 3, 2015)

Landellmills P., Serageldin I. Governance and the external factor. World Bank Economic Review. 1991. Volume 5. Issue suppl_1. P. 303-320. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/5.suppl_1.303

Johnston M. Good governance: Rule of law, Transparency and accountability. New York: Colgate University, 2004. URL: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan010193.pdf

Dev Raj Dahal. The Challenge of Good Governances. Kathmandu: Centre for Governance and Development Studies, 1996. 78 p.

Donohue J. What is good corporate governance? 9 characteristics (with examples). Diligent. March 28, 2024. URL: https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/what-constitutes-good-governance

Preti B. C. Contemporary South Asia, Good Governance in South Asia. New Delhi: Kaling publication, 2004. 304 p.

Погребняк С. Концепції good governance та good administration (міжнародний, європейський та національний досвід). Філософія права і загальна теорія права. 2012. № 1. С. 177-190.

Серьогін В.О. Європейське управління як інститут конституційного права Європейського Союзу. Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В.Н. Каразіна. Серія «Право». 2022. Вип. 33. С. 28-43. URL: https://doi.org/10.26565/2075-1834-2022-33-03

Європейське врядування: Біла Книга. COM(2001) 428. URL: https://pravo.org.ua/files/konstutyc/WHITE_BOOK_UKR_REV.pdf.

Dahl R. A. Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view. Democracy’s Edges / I. Shapiro, C. Hacker-Cordon (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. P. 19–36.

Wilde P. de, Leupold A., Schmidtke H. Introduction: the differentiated politicisation of European governance. West European Politics. 2016. Vol. 39(1). P. 3-22.

Ancheş D.-I. The issue of the European governance. Cross-Border Journal for International Studies. 2016. № 1. Р. 7-25.

The Committee of the Regions’ White Paper on multilevel governance, 17 and 18 June 2009. URL: http://web.cor.europa.eu/epp/Ourviews/Documents/White%20Paper%20on%20MLG.pdf

Stocktaking on the notions of «Good Governance» and «Good Administration»: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) ; Strasbourg, 8 April 2011, Study № 470/2008, CDL-AD(2011)009. URL: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29009-e.pdf .

Ponce Solé J. El derecho a la buena administración, la discrecionalidad administrativa y la mejora de la gestión pública. Revista da Procuradoria-Geral do Município de Juiz de Fora . 2012. Año 2. № 2. Р. 305-310.

CJCE judgment of 31 March 1992, Burban, case C-255/90 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c22a6b4c-a619-471e-9230-3e334f2b3995.0002.03/DOC_2&format=PDF

CJCE judgment of 15 October 1987, Heylens, case C-222/86. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8eb743f8-aed6-4bf0-8dd0-14e3ab70a072.0002.06/DOC_2&format=PDF

CJCE judgment of 18 October 1989, Orken, case 374/87. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f84a7839-ab03-4e35-9c6c-63d4e5e73fc5.0002.03/DOC_2&format=PDF

Court of First Instance judgments of 18 September 1995, case T-167/94 Nölle [1995] ECR II-2589. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994TJ0167

Court of First Instance judgments of 9 July 1999, case T-231/97 New Europe Consulting and others [1999] ECR II-2403. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61997TJ0231

Castro A. Buen gobierno, derechos humanos y tendencias innovadoras en el derecho público. Buen Gobierno y Derechos Humanos / A. Castro (ed). Lima: Facultad de Derecho PUCP – Idhepucp, 2014. Р. 17-22. URL: https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/bitstream/handle/123456789/110666/2014-Buen%20gobierno%20y%20derechos%20humanos.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Ponce Solé J. Good administration and European Public Law. The fight for quality in the field of administrative decisions. European Review of Public Law. 2002. Vol. 14. № 4. Р. 1503–1544.

Castro A. Legalidad, buenas prácticas administrativas y efi cacia en el sector público. Buen Gobierno y Derechos Humanos / A. Castro (ed). Lima: Facultad de Derecho PUCP – Idhepucp, 2014. Р. 243-269. URL: https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/bitstream/handle/123456789/110666/2014-Buen%20gobierno%20y%20derechos%20humanos.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Ponce Solé J. El derecho a la buena administración y la calidad de las decisiones administrativas. Buen Gobierno y Derechos Humanos / A. Castro (ed). Lima: Facultad de Derecho PUCP – Idhepucp, 2014. Р. 85-120.

Constitution of Finland 1999 (rev. 2011). URL: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Finland_2011

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012/C 326/02). URL https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2020. HF v European Parliament. Case C-570/18 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0570

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996.

Commission of the European Communities v Lisrestal and others. Case C-32/95 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61995CJ0032

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 2000. Mediocurso - Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Ld.ª v Commission of the European Communities. Case C-462/98 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0462

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 July 2017.

Moussa Sacko v Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione internazionale di Milano. Case C-348/16. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0348

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 February 2022. OZ v European Investment Bank. Case C-558/17 P-DEP. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62017CO0558

Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2001. Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. Case C-315/99 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61999CJ0315

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 November 2012. M. M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others. Case C 277/11. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0277

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013. Council of the European Union v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran. Case C-348/12 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0348

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2020. European Commission v RQ. Case C-831/18 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0831

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 February 2016. Council of the European Union v Bank Mellat. Case C-176/13 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0176

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007. SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities. Case C-328/05 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0328

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 February 2016. Schenker Ltd v European Commission. Case T-265/12. URL : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62012TJ0265

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended composition) of 20 April 1999. Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV, DSM. Case T-305/94. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994TJ0305

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010. European Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH. Case C-139/07 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0139

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended composition) of 20 April 1999. Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV, DSM. Case T-305/94. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994TJ0305

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2008. Varec SA v Belgian State. Case C-450/06. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0450

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 July 2019. Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen ASBL v Conseil des ministres. Case C-411/17. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62017CJ0411

Judgment of the Court of 15 June 1994. Commission of the European Communities v BASF AG, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, DSM NV, DSM Kunststoffen BV, Hüls AG, Elf Atochem SA, Société Artésienne de Vinyle SA, Wacker Chemie GmbH, Enichem SpA, Hoechst AG, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd and Montedison SpA. Case C-137/92 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61992CJ0137

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008. Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala). Case C-413/06 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62006CJ0413

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005. Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. Case C-186/04. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0186

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 October 2013. Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission. Case C-521/09 P-DEP. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62009CO0521

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016. Club Hotel Loutraki AE and Others v European Commission. Case C-131/15 P. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0131

Judgment of the Court of 29 February 1996. Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union. Case C-122/94. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61994CJ0122

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 April 1993. Diversinte SA and Iberlacta SA v Administración Principal de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de la Junquera. Case C-260/91. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8ae55c93-1a40-4aea-8cd2-44827c809384.0002.06/DOC_2&format=PDF

Judgment of the Court of 21 November 1991. Technische Universität München v Hauptzollamt München-Mitte. Case C-269/90. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d73766a7-abdb-4401-b407-4e4fc5292398.0002.03/DOC_2&format=PDF

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2001. Kaufring AG and Others v Commission of the European Communities. Case T-186/97. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61997TJ0186

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 April 2018. Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia. Case C-258/16. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0258

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 March 2020. HUNGEOD Közlekedésfejlesztési, Földmérési, Útés Vasúttervezési Kft. and Others v Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság. Case C-496/18. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0496

Про адміністративну процедуру: Закон України від 17.02.2022 № 2073-IX. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2073-20#Text

Published
2024-05-28
Cited
How to Cite
Kaganovska, T., & Serohin, V. (2024). THE RIGHT TO GOOD ADMINISTRATION AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON: EU EXPERIENCE. The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series Law, (37), 8-27. https://doi.org/10.26565/2075-1834-2024-37-01