Supreme Administrative Court | |
---|---|
Verwaltungsgerichtshof | |
Established | 1876 |
Jurisdiction | Austria |
Location | Judenplatz 11, Vienna |
Website | vwgh.gv.at (in English) |
President | |
Currently | Rudolf Thienel |
Since | 1 January 2014 |
Vice President | |
Currently | Anna Sporrer |
Since | January 2014 |
In the Republic of Austria, the Supreme Administrative Court (German: Verwaltungsgerichtshof or VwGH) is the appellate court to which appeals may be made from the decisions of the country's eleven administrative trial courts. The Supreme Administrative Court also resolves demarcation disputes within the administrative court system and hears complaints about administrative trial courts that fail to issue verdicts legally required of them in a timely manner.
The court does not have a fixed number of members. The theoretical minimum is seven; the actual number, as of June 2018, is about seventy. Members are appointed by the President of Austria on nomination of the cabinet. With respect to most appointments, the cabinet is limited to choosing from a shortlist of three candidates provided by the court. The court is subdivided into 21 panels of three to five members each, each panel handling cases in a specific area of law.
The current president of the Supreme Administrative Court, appointed in January 2014, is Rudolf Thienel.
General courts have no power of judicial review in Austria. Judicial review of Austrian legislation is provided by a specialized Constitutional Court. Judicial review of acts of the executive branch, broadly speaking, is the responsibility of a system of specialized administrative courts. [1] However, there are some exceptions:
Generally meaning, the administrative courts hear complaints about decisions made by executive officials that
The constitution provides a taxative enumeration of the types of decisions that can be fought in an administrative court:
The administrative court system has two levels: administrative trial courts (Verwaltungsgerichte, singular Verwaltungsgericht), which have original jurisdiction, and the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), which hears appeals against the decisions of the trial courts and which supervises them in other respects as well. [9]
The international scholarly literature generally translates Verwaltungsgerichtshof as "Supreme Administrative Court". [10]
Prior to 2014, a minority of authors made strict use of the literal translation, which is simply "Administrative Court". [11] The literal translation was unambiguous at the time because every other tribunal of the administrative court system was called not a "court" (Gericht or Gerichtshof) but a "senate" (Senat). A 2014 reform of the administrative court system replaced the senates with Verwaltungsgerichte, singular Verwaltungsgericht, a word that also translates to "Administrative Court". The reform thus rendered the literal translation impractical.
The court refers to itself as "Supreme Administrative Court" in the English version of its website.
The Supreme Administrative Court hears appeals against verdicts handed down by administrative trial courts. [12]
Appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court are appeals at law (Revisionen). There are no appeals on facts and law (Berufungen) like there are in the general court system, and even appeals at law are more difficult to get accepted. [13] The court has comparatively little latitude in deciding which appeals to hear and which to decline; statutes lay down detailed rules:
The Supreme Administrative Court hears complaints about an administrative trial court's failure to issue a verdict in a timely manner. [16]
The right to complain to the Supreme Administrative Court about a negligent administrative trial court (Fristsetzungantrag) is closely linked to the right to complain to an administrative trial court about negligent bureaucrats (Säumnisbeschwerde). On the one hand, a complaint to an administrative court does not necessarily have suspensory effect. [17] On the other hand, administrative trial courts are not just cassatory but reformatory: they cannot merely void administrative decisions but can issue substantive decisions themselves. [18] Inactivity on the part of an administrative trial court can therefore hurt a complainant in much the same way as inactivity on the part of the bureaucracy can.
The court resolves demarcation conflicts between two administrative trial courts, or between an administrative trial court and the Supreme Administrative Court itself. [19]
The Supreme Administrative Court does not resolve demarcation conflicts between the administrative court system and other parts of the Austrian judiciary, between judiciary and executive, or between different parts of the executive branch; disputes of these kinds fall within the purview of the Constitutional Court. [20]
The Supreme Administrative Court consists of a president, a vice president, and as many additional members as court and cabinet deem necessary and appropriate. [21] The theoretical minimum number of members of the court is seven. [22] In the early 2010s, the actual number was about sixty. [23] By 2016, the member count had risen to about seventy. [24]
Justices are appointed by the President of Austria on nomination of the cabinet: [25]
Nominees must have a law degree and must have spent at least ten years working in a position that actually requires a law degree; they do not need to be licensed to practice law in any particular capacity. In particular, they do not need to be members of the judiciary (Richterstand); members of the judiciary are jurists who have completed post-graduate training for the judgeship and have passed the exam that makes them eligible for appointment to the bench of a general court. [22]
Nominees cannot be members of a national or provincial cabinet or legislative body. [26]
For the purpose of actually trying cases, the court is partitioned into 21 panels (Senate) of either three or five members. [27] Each panel is responsible for cases in a specific area of law − asylum law, aliens' law, procurement law, housing and construction law, and so on. [24] Panels dealing with administrative penal cases have three members; all other panels have five. [28] If a panel of five is dealing with a question with regards to which existing Supreme Administrative Court case law is inconsistent, the panel has to add an additional four members. The panel also has to add an additional four members if it notices it is moving towards a verdict that overturns existing case law; the quorum for any decision that throws out precedent is nine justices. [29]
Plenary sessions of the Supreme Administrative Court are rare. A plenary session is required to make alterations to the panels system, to change the court's internal rules of procedure in some other way, to choose shortlists of nominees for appointment to the court, and to authorize the yearly activity report. [30]
A new case that comes before the court is first assigned to the relevant panel by the president of the court. One of the members of the panel is appointed case manager (Berichter). The case manager directs the preliminary investigation research. [31] An office staffed with about 45 researchers and other assistants is attached to the court to aid case managers in this task. [32] Once the preliminary investigation is complete, the panel convenes, hears the official presentation of case and research by the case manager, deliberates, and votes. The case manager votes first, the chair votes last; other members vote in order of decreasing seniority. Members are required to vote; abstentation is not permitted. Cases are decided by a simple majority. [33]
Generally speaking, panels do not hear oral argument, and their sessions are not public. [34] Parties to the trial may petition the panel to open the session to the public and hear oral argument. In theory, the panel has to grant the request, but the relevant statute defines several classes of exceptions to this rule that are broad enough to render it meaningless in practice. The panel may also decide to open the session to the public and hear oral argument on its own initiative; it does so only very rarely. [35]
The Federal Court of Justice is the highest court of civil and criminal jurisdiction in Germany. Its primary responsibility is the final appellate review of decisions by lower courts for errors of law. While, legally, a decision by the Federal Court of Justice is only binding with respect to the individual case in which it enters, de facto the court's interpretation of the law is followed by lower courts with almost no exception. Decisions handed down by the Federal Court of Justice can only be vacated by the Federal Constitutional Court for violating a provision of the German constitution, the Basic Law.
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.
The Alaska Court System is the unified, centrally administered, and totally state-funded judicial system for the state of Alaska. The Alaska District Courts are the primary misdemeanor trial courts, the Alaska Superior Courts are the primary felony trial courts, and the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals are the primary appellate courts. The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Alaska Court System.
The Judiciary of Russia interprets and applies the law of Russia. It is defined under the Constitution and law with a hierarchical structure with the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court at the apex. The district courts are the primary criminal trial courts, and the regional courts are the primary appellate courts. The judiciary is governed by the All-Russian Congress of Judges and its Council of Judges, and its management is aided by the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, the Higher Qualification Board of Judges, and the Ministry of Justice, and the various courts' presidents. And although there are many officers of the court, including jurors, the Prosecutor General remains the most powerful component of the Russian judicial system.
The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts. The Courts of Appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 106 justices.
The judicial system of Turkey is defined by Articles 138 to 160 of the Constitution of Turkey.
The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.
The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.
The judiciary of Norway is hierarchical with the Supreme Court at the apex. The conciliation boards only hear certain types of civil cases. The district courts are deemed to be the first instance of the Courts of Justice. Jury (high) courts are the second instance, and the Supreme Court is the third instance.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final 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.
The judiciary of Austria is the system of courts, prosecution and correction of the Republic of Austria as well as the branch of government responsible for upholding the rule of law and administering justice. The judiciary is independent of the other two branches of government and is committed to guaranteeing fair trials and equality before the law. It has broad and effective powers of judicial review.
The Judiciary of New York is the judicial branch of the Government of New York, comprising all the courts of the State of New York.
The Constitutional Court in Austria is the tribunal responsible for judicial review.
The judiciary of Illinois is the unified court system of Illinois primarily responsible for applying the Constitution and law of Illinois. It consists of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, and circuit courts. The Supreme Court oversees the administration of the court system.
The Supreme Court of Justice is the final court of appeal of Austria in civil and criminal matters. Along with the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court, it is one of Austria's three apex courts.
The judiciary of Michigan is defined under the Michigan Constitution, law, and regulations as part of the Government of Michigan. The court system consists of the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals as the intermediate appellate court, the circuit courts and district courts as the two primary trial courts, and several administrative courts and specialized courts. The Supreme Court administers all the courts. The Michigan Supreme Court consists of seven members who are elected on non-partisan ballots for staggered eight-year terms, while state appellate court judges are elected to terms of six years and vacancies are filled by an appointment by the governor, and circuit court and district court judges are elected to terms of six years.
The Judiciary of the Netherlands is the system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the Netherlands.
The European and Austrian constitutions endow the Austrian court system with broad powers of judicial review. All Austrian courts are charged with verifying that the statutes and ordinances they are about to apply conform to European Union law, and to refuse to apply them if not. A specialized Constitutional Court checks statutes for compliance with the Austrian constitution and executive ordinances for compliance with Austrian law in general.
In Austria, a minister is a member of the Cabinet that usually leads a ministry or a division of the Chancellery.
In Austrian constitutional law, a supreme executive organ , is an elected official, political appointee, or collegiate body with ultimate responsibility for a certain class of administrative decisions – either decisions in some specific area of public administration or decisions of some specific type. The president, for example, is the supreme executive organ with regards to appointing judges; the minister of justice is the supreme executive organ with regards to running the prosecution service; the president of the Constitutional Court is the supreme executive organ with regards to the operational management of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court itself, on the other hand, is not a supreme organ because its decisions, while definitive, are judicial and not administrative in nature.