• Abstract

    The urgency of the study is stipulated by the need to clarify the features of administrative discretion in states with different democracy indices (different political regimes) and to describe the verification of compliance with the limits of discretion. The purpose of the article is to clarify the correlation between the understanding and administrative discretion boundaries and the type of state according to the level of democratic development. The research is based on the democracy index, determined annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit, according to which states are divided into four types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. A comparative method, which was used to compare the perception of administrative discretion in Germany and Ukraine as typical states of full democracies and hybrid regimes, is the basis of the research. The article clarifies that administrative discretion should be understood as a way of exercising the powers of administrative authorities, which involves choosing one of several possible options for behavior in a specific case and is carried out in compliance with the rule of law, human rights, principles of administrative procedures, and the purpose of powers; it is substantiated that in the states of hybrid regimes, the institution of administrative discretion is poorly developed, there are no clear criteria for the discretion boundaries, the issue of judicial control over decisions made with the use of discretion is uncertain, and there is excessive bureaucracy. The materials of the article can be used for administrative discretion scientific research and algorithms for checking compliance with discretionary limits. The main provisions of the article can become guidelines for hybrid regime states to improve legislation in the area of discretion implementation.

  • References

    1. Allars, M. (2000). The Rights of Citizens and the Limits of Administrative Discretion: The Contribution of Sir Anthony Mason to Administrative Law. Federal Law Review, 28(2), 187–211. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.28.2.3
    2. Amnesty International Report 2021/22 (2022). The State of the World`s Human Rights. Amnesty International Retrieved from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/POL1048702022ENGLISH.pdf
    3. Barak, A. & Kaufmann, Y. (1989). Judicial Discretion. New Hawen and London: Yale University Press. 312 p.
    4. Bundestag (1976). Law on Administrative Procedures. Retrieved from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwvfg/index.html#BJNR012530976BJNE006002301
    5. Case of Moskal v. Poland (2009). Application no. 10373/05. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-94009
    6. Case of Rysovskyy v. Ukraine (2011). Application no. 29979/04. Retrieved from: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-107088
    7. Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus (2011). Application no. 32181/04. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ukr?i=001-105766
    8. Case of the Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (2000). Application no. 25701/94. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59051
    9. Case of Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000). Application no. 34369/97. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58561
    10. Constitution of Ukraine No. 254k / 96-VR (1996). Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ 254к/96-вр#Text
    11. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950). Council of Europe.
    12. Daintith, Т. (2005). Contractual Discretion and Administrative Discretion: A Unified Analysis. The Modern Law Review, 68(4). Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.00551.x
    13. Dedov, D. (2014). The Rule of Law and Legal State Doctrines as a Methodology of the Philosophy of Law. The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (Rechtsstaat), 38. Cham: Springer. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05585-5_5
    14. Economist Intelligence (2021). Democracy Index 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2021/
    15. Economist Intelligence (2022). Democracy Index 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/
    16. European Council conclusions on Ukraine, the membership applications of Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia, Western Balkans and external relations (2022). European Council. Retrieved from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/23/european-council-conclusions-on-ukraine-the-membership-applications-of-ukraine-the-republic-of-moldova-and-georgia-western-balkans-and-external-relations-23-june-2022/
    17. Goldschmidt, L. (2020). II. Nature and Scope of State Administrative Powers. Band 1 (pp. 371-386). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112378700-013
    18. Golovin, D., Nazymko, Y., Koropatov, O. & Korniienko, M. (2022). Electronic Evidence in Proving Crimes of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Turnover. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2(14), 156–166. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-5.2-n000217
    19. Heath, J. (2020). Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law. The Machinery of Government: Public Administration and the Liberal State. New York: Oxford Academic. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509616.003.0006
    20. Hrin, А. А. (2019). Executive Authorities’ of Ukraine Discretionary Powers and Their Implementation. Kyiv. 256 p.
    21. Iemets, L. O., Pyshna, A. H. & Hridina, K.V. (2020). Right to freedom of expression in conditions of information technologies development. Revista Gênero & Direito’s Edition, 9(4), 1031–1045.
    22. In The New York Review of Books Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power
    23. Jacobs, F. G. & White, R. C. A. (1996). The European Convention on Human Rights. 2nd Edition. Oxford. 534 p.
    24. Kharenko, О. & Kalna, V. (2018). Modern Regulation of administrative Discretion in Ukraine. Comparative and Analytical Law, 5, 254-257.
    25. Kirste, S. (2014). Philosophical foundations of the principle of the legal state (rechtsstaat) and the rule of law. The Legal Doctrines of the Rule of Law and the Legal State (pp. 29–43). Cham: Springer. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05585-5_3
    26. Kivalov, S. V. (2020). Application of administrative discretion in conditions of counteraction the spread of the covid-19 pandemic. Public administration under modern conditions: concept, features, challenges (pp. 1–15). Riga: Izdevniecība “Baltija Publishing”. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-588-67-9.1
    27. Konstant, A. (2016). Rights, administrative discretion and Dawood. South African Journal on Human Rights, 32(1), 106–129. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2016.1162441
    28. Kovalova, O., Кorniienko & M., Postol, O. (2019). Ensuring of child’s dignity as a principle of modern education: administrative and legal aspects. Asia Life Sciences Supplement, 21(2), 341–359.
    29. Krumme, J.-H. (2018). Discretion. Retrieved from: https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/ermessen-32994/version-256523
    30. Laski, H. J. (1923). The growth of administrative discretion. The Journal of Public Adminihration, 1(2), 92-100.
    31. Mayorov, V. (2020). To the issue of connecting the concepts of “competence” and “authorization” of the National police of Ukraine. Law and State Administration, 1(1), 85–89. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.32840/pdu.2020.1-1.13
    32. Methodology of anti-corruption examination No. 1395/5 (2017). Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
    33. Nestler, N. (2018). Criminal offences interpretation: interpretation ways and methodology. juristische ausbildung. Juristische Ausbildung, 6, 568–576. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1515/jura-2018-0122
    34. Omelian, O.V. (2018). The essence of administrative discretion in the activity of public administration. Administrative Law and Process, 2(21), 23–33. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796X.2018.2.03
    35. On Administrative Proceedings. No. 2073-IX (2022). Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2073-20#Text
    36. Priel, D. (2010). Description and evaluation in jurisprudence. Law and Philosophy, 29(6), 633–667. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9081-y
    37. Raschauer, B. (2009). General Administrative Law. Springer: Vienna, 485 p. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-99262-3
    38. Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium v. Belgium (Merits) (1968). Application no 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64. Retrieved from: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57525
    39. Renner, H. (2021). Discretion provided in Administrative Jurisprudence and in Administratice Court Proceedings. Legal Research. München: GRIN Verlag.
    40. Report on the Rule of Law (2011). Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 86th plenary session. European commission for democracy through law. Retrieved from: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29003rev-e.pdf.
    41. Resolution of June 16, 2022 in the case No. 9901/57/19 (2022). Retrieved from: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105168221
    42. Roth, K. (2020). How Authoritarians Are Exploiting the COVID-19 Crisis to Grab Power. In Human rights watch. Retrieved from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power
    43. Scurich, N. (2018). Styles of argumentation in judicial opinions (legitimating judicial decisions). Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 205–218. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-031050
    44. Semenii O. M. (2016). The problem of abuse of administrative discretion in the activity of public administration: foreign experience analysis and generalization. Law and Society, 3, 132–136.
    45. Slosser, J. L. (2019). Components of legal concepts: quality of law, evaluative judgement, and metaphorical framing of Article 8 ECHR. European Law Journal, 25(6), 593–607. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12347
    46. Sunkin, M. (1983). Judicial review: rights and discretion in public law. The Modern Law Review, 46 (5), 645–653.
    47. Treves, G. E. (1947). Administrative discretion and judicial control. The Modern Law Review, 10(3), 276–291.
    48. Ukeje, I.O., Onele, J.C., Okezie, B.N., Ekwunife, R.A., Ogbonnaya, C.E. & Nwangbo, S.O. (2020). Public service ethics and accountability. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 1–12. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4173-1
    49. Wendel, M. (2019). Administrative Discretion as a Multi-Level Problem. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, XXIX, 511 p. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-156688-2
    50. Zeller, E., Kuybida, R. & Melnyk, R. (2021). Report "Discretion of Administrative Bodies and Judicial Control”. Retrieved from: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public/602/690/8dd/6026908dd95a1826017060.pdf
    51. Zhang, X. (2018). Towards the Rule of Law: Judicial Control of Administrative Discretion in a Comparative Context. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3286207

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 Multidisciplinary Reviews

How to cite

Bakhtina, I. S., Anastasiia I. Berendieieva, Alla H. Pyshna, Yevhen V. Bilozorov, & Andrii M. Kuchuk. (2023). Administrative discretion in states of full democracy and hybrid regime: the example of Germany and Ukraine. Multidisciplinary Reviews, (| Accepted Articles). Retrieved from https://malque.pub/ojs/index.php/mr/article/view/1038
  • Article viewed - 125