Ambtshalve toetsing: gerechtvaardigde uitzondering of uitgeholde regel? Een rechtsgeleerd onderzoek naar de legitimering van het verbod van ambtshalve toetsing door de bestuursrechter van besluiten aan materieel recht

M. Harmsen

Research output: ThesisPhD Thesis - Research UT, graduation UTAcademic

484 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Dutch administrative courts are, on the whole, not allowed to perform an ex officio judicial review of administrative decisions. The binding nature of nearly all rules of substantive administrative law and the specific characteristics of the administrative decisions involved, beg the question how and to what extent this prohibition can be justified. According to recent legal history a (more) reciprocal way of establishing and maintaining administrative relationships between citizens and administrative bodies provides the leading justification. The fact remains, however, that legally speaking administrative decisions are still taken unitarily by administrative organs. Furthermore, a more reciprocal approach is obstructed by the principle of legality, which determines the binding nature of administrative law, nor does reciprocity fit with the principles of proper administration. Consequently, reciprocity is not a plausible justification. The same may be said about an additional justification from legal history, of possible infringement by ex officio judgements of legal certainty of parties. Since ex officio judicial review barely intrudes upon obtained legal positions of parties, this argument cannot be considered as a plausible justification either. Furthermore, principles of procedural law (such as respect of the rights of defense, procedure within a reasonable time and impartiality of administrative judges) do not justify a prohibition of ex officio judicial. The evaluation of the arguments for the current prohibition of ex officio judicial review, is supplemented with a historical analysis of early doctrinal thoughts on the nature of administrative procedure and a comparative analysis of the nature of the law of civil procedure, given the overridingly reciprocal nature of civil law relationships. On the basis of the evaluation of the most important pro-prohibition arguments in legal literature, and the historical and comparative analysis, the overall conclusion must be that there’s no proper legal justification for the present strong constraints on ex officio reviewing by Dutch administrative courts.
Original languageDutch
Awarding Institution
  • University of Twente
Supervisors/Advisors
  • Heldeweg, Michiel A., Supervisor
  • Ruiter, Dick W.P., Supervisor
Award date15 Nov 2013
Place of PublicationDen Haag
Publisher
Print ISBNs978-90-8974-849-2
Publication statusPublished - 15 Nov 2013

Keywords

  • METIS-298603
  • IR-87729

Cite this

@phdthesis{650d77662b284dc3984cbb5ecf99d871,
title = "Ambtshalve toetsing: gerechtvaardigde uitzondering of uitgeholde regel? Een rechtsgeleerd onderzoek naar de legitimering van het verbod van ambtshalve toetsing door de bestuursrechter van besluiten aan materieel recht",
abstract = "Dutch administrative courts are, on the whole, not allowed to perform an ex officio judicial review of administrative decisions. The binding nature of nearly all rules of substantive administrative law and the specific characteristics of the administrative decisions involved, beg the question how and to what extent this prohibition can be justified. According to recent legal history a (more) reciprocal way of establishing and maintaining administrative relationships between citizens and administrative bodies provides the leading justification. The fact remains, however, that legally speaking administrative decisions are still taken unitarily by administrative organs. Furthermore, a more reciprocal approach is obstructed by the principle of legality, which determines the binding nature of administrative law, nor does reciprocity fit with the principles of proper administration. Consequently, reciprocity is not a plausible justification. The same may be said about an additional justification from legal history, of possible infringement by ex officio judgements of legal certainty of parties. Since ex officio judicial review barely intrudes upon obtained legal positions of parties, this argument cannot be considered as a plausible justification either. Furthermore, principles of procedural law (such as respect of the rights of defense, procedure within a reasonable time and impartiality of administrative judges) do not justify a prohibition of ex officio judicial. The evaluation of the arguments for the current prohibition of ex officio judicial review, is supplemented with a historical analysis of early doctrinal thoughts on the nature of administrative procedure and a comparative analysis of the nature of the law of civil procedure, given the overridingly reciprocal nature of civil law relationships. On the basis of the evaluation of the most important pro-prohibition arguments in legal literature, and the historical and comparative analysis, the overall conclusion must be that there’s no proper legal justification for the present strong constraints on ex officio reviewing by Dutch administrative courts.",
keywords = "METIS-298603, IR-87729",
author = "M. Harmsen",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "15",
language = "Dutch",
isbn = "978-90-8974-849-2",
publisher = "Boom Juridische Uitgevers",
school = "University of Twente",

}

TY - THES

T1 - Ambtshalve toetsing: gerechtvaardigde uitzondering of uitgeholde regel? Een rechtsgeleerd onderzoek naar de legitimering van het verbod van ambtshalve toetsing door de bestuursrechter van besluiten aan materieel recht

AU - Harmsen, M.

PY - 2013/11/15

Y1 - 2013/11/15

N2 - Dutch administrative courts are, on the whole, not allowed to perform an ex officio judicial review of administrative decisions. The binding nature of nearly all rules of substantive administrative law and the specific characteristics of the administrative decisions involved, beg the question how and to what extent this prohibition can be justified. According to recent legal history a (more) reciprocal way of establishing and maintaining administrative relationships between citizens and administrative bodies provides the leading justification. The fact remains, however, that legally speaking administrative decisions are still taken unitarily by administrative organs. Furthermore, a more reciprocal approach is obstructed by the principle of legality, which determines the binding nature of administrative law, nor does reciprocity fit with the principles of proper administration. Consequently, reciprocity is not a plausible justification. The same may be said about an additional justification from legal history, of possible infringement by ex officio judgements of legal certainty of parties. Since ex officio judicial review barely intrudes upon obtained legal positions of parties, this argument cannot be considered as a plausible justification either. Furthermore, principles of procedural law (such as respect of the rights of defense, procedure within a reasonable time and impartiality of administrative judges) do not justify a prohibition of ex officio judicial. The evaluation of the arguments for the current prohibition of ex officio judicial review, is supplemented with a historical analysis of early doctrinal thoughts on the nature of administrative procedure and a comparative analysis of the nature of the law of civil procedure, given the overridingly reciprocal nature of civil law relationships. On the basis of the evaluation of the most important pro-prohibition arguments in legal literature, and the historical and comparative analysis, the overall conclusion must be that there’s no proper legal justification for the present strong constraints on ex officio reviewing by Dutch administrative courts.

AB - Dutch administrative courts are, on the whole, not allowed to perform an ex officio judicial review of administrative decisions. The binding nature of nearly all rules of substantive administrative law and the specific characteristics of the administrative decisions involved, beg the question how and to what extent this prohibition can be justified. According to recent legal history a (more) reciprocal way of establishing and maintaining administrative relationships between citizens and administrative bodies provides the leading justification. The fact remains, however, that legally speaking administrative decisions are still taken unitarily by administrative organs. Furthermore, a more reciprocal approach is obstructed by the principle of legality, which determines the binding nature of administrative law, nor does reciprocity fit with the principles of proper administration. Consequently, reciprocity is not a plausible justification. The same may be said about an additional justification from legal history, of possible infringement by ex officio judgements of legal certainty of parties. Since ex officio judicial review barely intrudes upon obtained legal positions of parties, this argument cannot be considered as a plausible justification either. Furthermore, principles of procedural law (such as respect of the rights of defense, procedure within a reasonable time and impartiality of administrative judges) do not justify a prohibition of ex officio judicial. The evaluation of the arguments for the current prohibition of ex officio judicial review, is supplemented with a historical analysis of early doctrinal thoughts on the nature of administrative procedure and a comparative analysis of the nature of the law of civil procedure, given the overridingly reciprocal nature of civil law relationships. On the basis of the evaluation of the most important pro-prohibition arguments in legal literature, and the historical and comparative analysis, the overall conclusion must be that there’s no proper legal justification for the present strong constraints on ex officio reviewing by Dutch administrative courts.

KW - METIS-298603

KW - IR-87729

M3 - PhD Thesis - Research UT, graduation UT

SN - 978-90-8974-849-2

PB - Boom Juridische Uitgevers

CY - Den Haag

ER -