Administrative court

Last updated April 03, 2024

An administrative court is a type of specialized court on administrative law, particularly disputes concerning the exercise of public power. Their role is to ascertain that official acts are consistent with the law. Such courts are considered separate from ordinary courts.

The administrative acts are recognized from the hallmark that they become binding without the consent of the other involved parties. The contracts between authorities and legal persons governed by private law fall usually to the jurisdiction of the general court system. Official decisions contested in administrative courts include:^[1]

taxation
dispensation of monetary benefits
environmental licenses
building inspection
child custody
involuntary commitment
immigration decisions
summary public payments (other than fines imposed by general courts)

In several countries, in addition to general courts, there is a separate system of administrative courts, where the general and administrative systems do not have jurisdiction over each other. Accordingly, there is a local administrative court of first instance, possibly an appeals court and a Supreme Administrative Court separate from the general Supreme Court.

The parallel system is found in countries like Egypt, Greece, Germany, France, Italy, some of the Nordic Countries, Portugal, Taiwan and others. In France, Greece, Portugal and Sweden, the system has three levels like the general system, with local courts, appeal courts and a Supreme Administrative Court. In Finland, Italy, Poland and Taiwan, the system has two levels, where the court of first instance is a regional court. In Germany, the system is more complicated, and courts are more specialized.

In Sweden and Finland, legality of decisions of both state agencies and municipal authorities can be appealed to the administrative courts. In accordance with the principle of the legal autonomy of municipalities, administrative courts can (if not stipulated otherwise) only review and rule on the formal legality of the decision, not its content. In the case of state agencies, administrative courts may rule on the actual content of the decision.

The United States does not have a separate system of administrative courts in the judicial branch.^[2] Instead, administrative law judges (ALJs) preside over tribunals within executive branch agencies. In American jurisprudence, ALJs are always regarded as part of the executive branch, despite their quasi-judicial adjudicative role, because of the strict separation of powers imposed by the United States Constitution.^[3] Decisions of ALJs can be appealed to courts in the judicial branch.

Notably, in 1952, the Communist East German government abolished the administrative courts as "bourgeois". This limited the citizens' ability to contest official decisions. In 1989, re-establishment of the system began in DDR, but the German reunification made this initiative obsolete.

List

Related Research Articles

Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive branch agencies of government. Administrative law includes executive branch rule making, adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.

The Judicial Yuan is the judicial branch of the government of Taiwan. It runs a Constitutional Court and oversees all systems of courts of Taiwan, including ordinary courts like the supreme court, high courts, district courts as well as special courts like administrative courts and disciplinary courts. By Taiwanese law, the Judicial Yuan holds the following powers:

District courts are a category of courts which exists in several nations, some call them "small case court" usually as the lowest level of the hierarchy. These include:

An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the United States is a judge and trier of fact who both presides over trials and adjudicates claims or disputes involving administrative law. ALJs can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.

The Council of State is the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece.

The judicial system of Greece is the country's constitutionally established system of courts.

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A Supreme Court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction, however, this is typically limited to constitutional law.

The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:

The Judiciary of Spain consists of Courts and Tribunals, composed of judges and magistrates (Justices), who have the power to administer justice in the name of the King of Spain.

The judicial system of Sweden consists of the law of Sweden and a number of government agencies tasked with upholding security and rule of law within the country. The activities of these agencies include police and law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and prisons and other correctional services.

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania is the highest court of Albania and is the final court of appeals in the country's judicial system. It is composed of seventeen judges: the Chief Justice and sixteen Members.

The judiciary of Uruguay is a branch of the government of Uruguay that interprets and applies the laws of Uruguay, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system of Uruguay is a civil law system, with public law based on the 1967 Constitution, amended in 1989, 1994, 1997, and 2004. The Constitution declares Uruguay to be a democratic republic, and separates the government into three equal branches, executive, legislative and judicial. Private relationships are subject to the Uruguayan Civil Code, originally published in 1868. The Constitution defines the judiciary as a hierarchical system courts, with the highest court being a five-member Supreme Court, who are appointed by the legislative branch of the government, for ten-year terms. The Supreme Court appoints the judges of most of the lower courts. Below the Supreme Court, there are sixteen courts of appeal, each of which has three judges. Seven of the courts of appeal specialize in civil matters, four specialize in criminal matters, three cover labour law, and two focus on family matters. At the lowest tier are justices of the peace and courts of first instance specialized in administrative, civil, criminal, customs, juvenile, and labour cases. Although the hierarchy, all of them are functionally and structurally impartial, that is, the tribunal should not be interested in the object of the particular case, and the higher tribunal does not impose a behaviour nor precedent to the lower ones. There are also separate courts for auditing, elections and the military.

The judiciary of Croatia is a branch of the Government of Croatia that interprets and applies the laws of Croatia, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system of Croatia is a civil law system, historically influenced by Austrian, Hungarian and Yugoslav law, but during the accession of Croatia to the European Union, the legal system was almost completely harmonised with European Union law. The Constitution of Croatia provides for an independent judiciary, led by a Supreme Court and a Constitutional Court. The Ministry of Justice handles the administration of courts and judiciary, including paying salaries and constructing new courthouses. It also administers the prison system.

The Judiciary of Kosovo is the collection of the central Kosovo institutions that exercises judicial authority in Kosovo. According to the 2008 Constitution of Kosovo, the judicial system is composed of the Supreme Court and subordinate courts, a Constitutional Court, and an independent prosecutorial institution. The courts are administered by the Kosovo Judicial Council.

The law of Cyprus is a legal system which applies within the Republic of Cyprus. Although Cypriot law is extensively codified, it is still heavily based on English common law in the sense that the fundamental principle of precedent applies.

The Judiciary of Armenia interprets and applies the laws of Armenia. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, judiciary exercises judicial power separately from the legislative power of Parliament and executive power of the Prime Minister. Per the Constitution, it is defined with a hierarchical structure regulated by the Supreme Judicial Council of Armenia. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice of Armenia is a government agency which possesses executive authority and executes policies of the Government of Armenia in sectors that are closely associated with laws and regulations.

References

↑ Oikeusministeriö - Justitieministeriet Archived February 10, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
↑ Farnsworth, E. Allan (2010). Sheppard, Steve (ed.). An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780199733101 . Retrieved November 17, 2020.
↑ City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, 569 U.S. 290, 304 n.4 (2013).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Oikeusministeriö - Justitieministeriet Archived February 10, 2008, at the Wayback Machine

[Farnsworth_Page_170-2] Farnsworth, E. Allan (2010). Sheppard, Steve (ed.). An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780199733101 . Retrieved November 17, 2020.

[3] City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, 569 U.S. 290, 304 n.4 (2013).

[1]

[2]

[3]