Search results

1

Criteria of review adopted by administrative courts to examine discretionary decisions

100%

Artymionek P.

Prawo

|

2013

|

issue 315/1

EN

The article concerns the criteria of review adopted by administrative courts to examine decisions issued by public authorities at their administrative discretion. The author presents views of legal commentators and judicial decisions with respect to administrative law and the case law of administrative courts, specifically investigating the current views. The author reflects on whether it is essentially admissible to review a discretionary decision. He also shows the differences and similarities between a mandatory decision and a discretionary decision and answers the following question: Is it admissible to review a discretionary decision by an administrative court on the basis of the criterion of expediency? Is the court only authorized to consider the criterion of legality? According to the main conclusions of the article, there are no differences between a mandatory decision and a discretionary decision as far as the review by the administrative courts is concerned; the criterion of expediency is permitted if such a criterion emanates from the regulations empowering the authority to make discretionary decisions; it has also been observed that administrative courts increasingly expand the review capacity to ensure compliance with the law, so that any such review could also be used to verify the correctness of the discretionary decision which has been issued.

2

REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

100%

Artymionek P.

Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej

|

2017

|

issue 2

130-142

EN

The paper concerns reviews conducted by administrative courts of decisions issued by public administration authorities on the basis of their administrative discretion. The author presents decisions of the administrative law doctrine and case-law of administrative courts, with particular regard to the current views. The author reflects on admissibility of the review of discretionary decision. He indicates the differences and similarities between a constrained decision and a discretionary decision, and also answers the questions whether it is admissible to conduct the review of the discretionary decision by administrative courts on the basis of the criterion of expediency and it is possible that the court considers only the criterion of legality. According to the main conclusions of the paper, there are no differences between the constrained decision and discretionary decision in terms of the review by administrative courts; the criterion of expediency is permitted if it results from the regulations empowering the authority to issue discretionary decisions; it has also been observed that administrative courts increasingly expand the review capacity to ensure the compliance with law, so that any such review could also be used to verify the correctness of the discretionary decision which has been issued.

3

KONTROLA DECYZJI UZNANIOWYCH SPRAWOWANA PRZEZ SĄDY ADMINISTRACYJNE

72%

Artymionek P.

Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej

|

2015

|

issue 3

66-78

PL

Artykuł dotyczy kontroli sprawowanej przez sądy administracyjne decyzji wydanych przez organy administracji publicznej na podstawie upoważnienia do uznania administracyjnego. Autor przedstawia dorobek doktryny prawa administracyjnego oraz orzecznictwo sądów administracyjnych wskazując w szczególności na aktualne poglądy. Autor zastanawia się nad samą dopuszczalnością kontroli decyzji uznaniowej. Wskazuje na różnice i podobieństwa decyzji związanej i decyzji uznaniowej. Odpowiada na pytania: czy dopuszczalne jest przeprowadzenie kontroli decyzji uznaniowej przez sąd administracyjny na podstawie kryterium celowości? Czy też sąd może brać pod uwagę tylko kryterium legalności? Podstawowe wnioski artykułu to brak różnic pomiędzy decyzją związaną, a decyzją uznaniową w zakresie kontroli sprawowanej przez sądy administracyjne, dopuszczenie kryterium celowości, gdy kryterium to wynika z przepisów upoważniających organ do wdania decyzji uznaniowych oraz spostrzeżenie, że sądy administracyjne w coraz większym stopniu rozciągają pojemność kontroli co do zgodności z prawem, tak żeby obejmowała ona również sprawdzenie słuszności wydanej decyzji uznaniowej.

EN

The article concerns the criteria of review adopted by administrative courts to examine decisions issued by public authorities at their administrative discretion. The author presents views of legal commentators and judicial decisions with respect to administrative law and the case law of administrative courts, specifically investigating the current views. The author reflects on whether it is essentially admissible to review a discretionary decision. He also shows the differences and similarities between a mandatory decision and a discretionary decision and answers the following question: is it admissible to review a discretionary decision by an administrative court on the basis of the criterion of expediency or is the court only authorized to consider the criterion of legality? According to the main conclusions of the article there are no differences between a mandatory decision and a discretionary decision as far as the review by the administrative courts is concerned; the criterion of expediency is permitted if such a criterion emanates from the regulations empowering the authority to make discretionary decisions; it has also been observed that administrative courts increasingly expand the review capacity to ensure compliance with law, so that any such review could also be used to verify the correctness of the discretionary decision which has been issued.

Refine search results

2 Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej

1 Prawo

1 2017

1 2015

1 2013

3 Artymionek P.

Criteria of review adopted by administrative courts to examine discretionary decisions

REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

KONTROLA DECYZJI UZNANIOWYCH SPRAWOWANA PRZEZ SĄDY ADMINISTRACYJNE