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.

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 ? vis the administration (that is, nemo tenetur se detegere) is concerned.

One of the basic aims of the project 'CoCEAL - The Common Core of European Administrative Law' is that of testing whether, and to what extent, the comparative legal methodology successfully developed under another initiative, that is, 'The Common Core of European Private Law' project, can be applied to the field of administrative law. This is why this paper will start by briefly describing the overall architecture, and the methodology underlying 'The Common Core of European Private Law' project. After reviewing and dismissing a few critiques that have through time been moved to the 'Common Core' enterprise, the paper will end with a sketch of the promises and challenges that the adoption of the 'Common Core' methodology might entail for the comparative research on European administrative law.

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.

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.

This book examines administrative silence in a comparative manner in the EU law and 13 jurisdictions from Europe. Administrative silence is an issue that lies at the intersection of legal and managerial aspects of public administration, a concept that is both reflecting and testing the principles of legal certainty, legality, good administration, legitimate expectations, and effectiveness. Inactivity or excessive length of proceedings appears to be of interest for comparisons, particularly in the context of the recent attempts to develop European convergence models. The book offers in-depth insights into legal regulation, theory, case law and practice regarding positive and negative legal fictions in the selected European jurisdictions.