Among the rights conferred on the citizens of Europe by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms is the right to and‘good administration.and’ It is anticipated that the new Reform Constitutional Treaty will operate to make the Charter and its rights legally binding. This is the first time that any legal system has proclaimed such a right and then sought to constitutionalise it. Whether the right to good administration under the Charter represents a new right, and, if such a right exists, whether it varies according to whether the executive is mandated to control or steward, is the subject matter of this thoughtful, unblinkered book. Grounding her exposition in a deeply-informed engagement with relevant primary and secondary sources, the author exposes the serious difficulties and contradictions in the concept of the right to good administration. She demonstrates that the features of good administration cannot be fixed or fully enunciated, but are identified only when the conduct of the administration fails to reach an acceptable standard, a standard that varies over time and context. And in the modes of the concept most often embracedand—such as the notion of citizen as consumer with marketplace choice, and the notion of and‘consultation, and’ a form of participatory democracy which privileges those individuals and communities who have the political sophistication to organise themselves and further marginalise large sectors of unorganised societyand—she finds a virtual denial of the democratic concept of citizen as sovereign, the and‘creatorand’ of state power who can dictate the exact limits to be placed on personal autonomy. The extraordinary clarity and conviction of the authorand’s approach is apparent in the details of her presentation, which include analysis of the following factors among others: and• the enforceable content of the right, including the role of the European Ombudsman; and• the relationship between good governance and good administration; and• the duties of the Commission as administrator; and• the uncertain reach of the concept of maladministration; and• damages in compensation actions as remedy for breach of good administration; and• pre-Charter principles of good administration as agreed in the Council of Europe and developed by the Courts; and and• the right of access to documentation, especially as it relates to the policy of language diversity. The final chapters examine the role of the right to good administration in the fraught contexts of competition law, Community finances, and the European environmental framework. This far-seeing study breaks new ground in the ever more politicized debate over the future of the European Union. As good administration is the mechanism by which the principles of good governance are to be delivered, the detailed attention given to this subject here is more than warranted. It is sure to be of exceptional value to all concerned with the development of an administrative institution of integrity and accountability in EU governance.

This PhD thesis highlights the particular importance and vast potential of the right to good administration in the EU legal order and more particularly the capacity of this right of ensuring the procedural protection of individuals in the context of "composite" administrative proceedings. It also constitutes a contribution to the (polemic) debate on the difficult coexistence of the various sources of fundamental rights in the EU legal order. It highlights in this regard that there are instances where, even in relation to what might appear to be the same right, there are overlaps and sometimes clear differences as regards its content and level of protection according to its interpretation as a General Principle of EU Law (GPL) or as a fundamental right codified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). This thesis undertakes an in-depth comparative assessment of the protection of good administration as a Charter's right and as a GPL.

This book seeks to find an answer to the question of how to rule a state well by drawing on a range of organizational, procedural, and substantive standards of administrative conduct developed within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE) as an organization of a broader scope than the European Union.

Winner of the 2020 Outstanding Book Award Presented by the Public and Nonprofit Section of the National Academy of Management Winner of the 2019 Louis Brownlow Book Award from the National Academy of Public Administration Bureaucracy, confusing paperwork, and complex regulations—or what public policy scholars Pamela Herd and Donald Moynihan call administrative burdens—often introduce delay and frustration into our experiences with government agencies. Administrative burdens diminish the effectiveness of public programs and can even block individuals from fundamental rights like voting. In AdministrativeBurden, Herd and Moynihan document that the administrative burdens citizens regularly encounter in their interactions with the state are not simply unintended byproducts of governance, but the result of deliberate policy choices. Because burdens affect people’s perceptions of government and often perpetuate long-standing inequalities, understanding why administrative burdens exist and how they can be reduced is essential for maintaining a healthy public sector. Through in-depth case studies of federal programs and controversial legislation, the authors show that administrative burdens are the nuts-and-bolts of policy design. Regarding controversial issues such as voter enfranchisement or abortion rights, lawmakers often use administrative burdens to limit access to rights or services they oppose. For instance, legislators have implemented administrative burdens such as complicated registration requirements and strict voter-identification laws to suppress turnout of African American voters. Similarly, the right to an abortion is legally protected, but many states require women seeking abortions to comply with burdens such as mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, and scripted counseling. As Herd and Moynihan demonstrate, administrative burdens often disproportionately affect the disadvantaged who lack the resources to deal with the financial and psychological costs of navigating these obstacles. However, policymakers have sometimes reduced administrative burdens or shifted them away from citizens and onto the government. One example is Social Security, which early administrators of the program implemented in the 1930s with the goal of minimizing burdens for beneficiaries. As a result, the take-up rate is about 100 percent because the Social Security Administration keeps track of peoples’ earnings for them, automatically calculates benefits and eligibility, and simply requires an easy online enrollment or visiting one of 1,200 field offices. Making more programs and public services operate this efficiently, the authors argue, requires adoption of a nonpartisan, evidence-based metric for determining when and how to institute administrative burdens, with a bias toward reducing them. By ensuring that the public’s interaction with government is no more onerous than it need be, policymakers and administrators can reduce inequality, boost civic engagement, and build an efficient state that works for all citizens.

The third edition of EU Administrative Law provides comprehensive coverage of the administrative system in the EU and the principles of judicial review that apply in this area. This revised edition provides important updates on each area covered, including new case law; institutional developments; and EU legislation. These changes are located within the framework of broader developments in the EU. The chapters in the first half of the book deal with all the principal variants of the EU administrative regime. Thus there are chapters dealing with the history and taxonomy of the EU administrative regime; direct administration; shared administration; comitology; agencies; social partners; and the open method of coordination. The coverage throughout focuses on the legal regime that governs the particular form of administration and broader issues of accountability, drawing on literature from political science as well as law. The focus in the second part of the book shifts to judicial review. There are detailed chapters covering all principles of judicial review and the discussion of the law throughout is analytical and contextual. It begins with the principles that have informed the development of EU judicial review. This is followed by a chapter dealing with the judicial system and the way in which reform could impact on the subject matter of the book. There are then chapters dealing with competence; access; transparency; process; law, fact and discretion; rights; equality; legitimate expectations; two chapters on proportionality; the precautionary principle; two chapters on remedies; and the Ombudsman.

This article asks whether a Charter of Good Administration ('CGA') is a good idea for Australia and gives some substance to proposals for a CGA which have languished in recent years. It discusses some of the issues that a CGA raises, given Australia's existing administrative law and constitutional framework. In doing so, it observes developments in the EU of a charter 'right to good administration' and soft law Code of Good Administrative Behaviour administered by the European Ombudsman, and in the UK of a common law principle of good administration. It also addresses why the UK approach is unlikely to occur in Australia but suggests that recent case law on the scope of judicial review shows that a common law principle of good administration is not entirely closed to us. It argues, however, that the most likely solution is a document that contains matters of legal entitlement and aspirational norms, closest in nature to the UK Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman's Principles of Good Administration.