Inspection Regulation between General Procedural Codification and Field Specifics – a Case Study of Slovenia

• Authors: Polonca Kovač
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Inspection, as the authoritative supervision of private liable persons to comply their activities with sector-specific laws, should ensure the full implementation of public policies. Slovenia adopted the Inspection Act (IA) in 2002, in order to conduct efficient inspection, and simultaneously guarantee the defence rights of the supervised parties pursuant to the fundamental principles of the EU, the national Constitution, and general Administrative Procedure Act. This article addresses the search for a balance between general codification and sector-related specifics as stipulated by the IA, applying normative, constitutional case law and comparative methods. Special attention is dedicated to the IA rules regarding participants, their legal protection and stages of respective proceedings. It has been concluded that the most of the IA specifics are justified in order to efficiently serve the public interest. This study reveals that the Slovene IA can represent a role model for efficient yet democratic supervision in other MS as well.

Keywords

EN

Inspection; Administrative Procedure; Lex Specialis; Public Interest; Rights of Defence; EU Principles; Slovenia

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: DANUBE: Law and Economics Review
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 1-17

Dates

published

2016-03-01

online

2016-04-09

Contributors

author

Polonca Kovač

• University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration, Gosarjeva ulica 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.

References

• Androjna, V. and Kerševan, E. (2006). Upravno procesno pravo [Administrative-Procedural Law]. Ljubljana: GV.
• Auburn, J., Moffett, J. and Sharland, A. (eds.). (2013). Judicial Review. Principles and Procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Auby, J.-B. (ed.). (2014). Codification of Administrative Procedure. Bruylant.
• Avbelj, M. (2014). Theorizing sovereignty and European integration. Ratio juris, 27(3), 344–363.
• Bousta, R. (2013). Who Said There is a ‘Right to Good Administration?’ A Critical Analysis of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. European Public Law, 19(3), 481–488.
• Burgi, M. and Durner, W. (2012). Modernisierung des Verwaltungsverfahrensrechts durch Stärkung des VwVfG. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Dragos, D. C. and Neamtu, B. (eds.). (2014). Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Springer.
• Dubos, O. (2015). The Origins of the Proceduralisation of EU Law: a Grey Area of European Federalism. Review of European Administrative Law, 8(1), 7–25.
• Galligan, D. J., Langan, R. H. II and Nicandrou, C. S. (1998). Administrative Justice in the New European Democracies: Case Studies of Administrative Law and Process in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine. Oxford: Open Society Institute, Constitutional and Legislative Policy Institute and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford.
• European Parliament. (2001). Right to Defence and Fair Legal Procedures in the Member States and the Candidate Countries. Working paper, Brussels.
• European Parliament’s Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (2012/2024(INI)) (2013). Retrieved December 25, 2015, from .
• Harlow, C. and Rawlings, R. (1997). Law and Administration. London, Edinburgh, Dublin: Butterworths.
• Helleringer, G. and Purnhagen, K. (eds.). (2014). Towards a European Legal Culture. Beck, Hart, Nomos.
• Hofmann, H. C. H. and Mihaescu, B. C. (2013). The Relation between the Charter’s Fundamental Rights and the Unwritten General principles of EU Law: Good Administration as the Test Case. European Constitutional Law Review, (9), 73–101.[WoS][Crossref]
• Hofmann, H. C. H, Schneider, J.-P. and Ziller, J. (eds.). (2014). The ReNEUAL Model Rules. ReNEUAL. Retrieved December 25, 2015, from .
• Inspection Council – Ministry of Public Administration (2015). Annual reports of the
• Inspection Council. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from .
• Kelly, J. (2003). The Audit Commission: Guiding, steering and regulating local government. Public Administration, 81(3), 456–476.[Crossref]
• Kovač, P. (2011). Modernizing administrative procedural law in Slovenia as a driving force of efficient and good administration. The NISPAcee journal, 4(2), 39–66.
• Kovač, P., Remic, M. and Sever, T. (2015).Upravno-procesne dileme 3 v posebnih upravnih postopkih [Administrative-Procedural Dilemmas 3 in Special Administrative Procedures]. Ljubljana: Official Gazette RS.
• Meuwese, A., Schuurmans, Y. and Voermans, W. (2009), Towards a European Administrative Procedure Act. Review of European Administrative Law, 2(2), 16–22.
• Nehl, H. P. (1999). Principles of Administrative Procedure in EC Law. Oxford: Hart.
• Ortlep, R., Ouden den, W., Schuurmans, Y., Tollenaar, A., Veen van der, G. and Wolkswinkel, J. (2014). Lessons for Europe. Dutch experiences with the codification of general administrative law, EGPA conference, September 10, 2014, Speyer.
• Pirnat, R. (ed.). (2004). Komentar zakonov s področja uprave [Comments to Acts relating to Administration]. Ljubljana: Public Administration Institute, Faculty of Law and Nebra.
• Rose-Ackerman, S. and Lindseth, P. L. (eds.). (2011). Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
• Tolsma, H. D. (2014). Improving Environmental Permitting Systems: Integrated Permits in the Netherlands, International Public Administration Journal, XII, 81–98.
• Statskontoret. (2005). Principles of Good Administration in the Member States of the European Union. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from .
• Šturm, L. (ed.). (2011). Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije. Dopolnitev – A [Comments to the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia – Supplement A]. Brdo: School of Government and European Studies.
• Wakefield, J. (2007). The right to good administration. Kluwer Law International.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/danb-2016-0001