THE REDUCTION OF THE MARGIN OF DISCRETION WHEN INTERFERING WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS – THE LAW OF UKRAINE “ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE” AND JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY REGARDING THE NARROWING OF THE LIMITS OF DISCRETION
Abstract
Goal. To determine the conditions and limitations during the application of administrative discretion, which are determined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Methods. The scientific provisions presented in the article are based on the use of general and special methods of scientific knowledge (logical-co-semantic method, comparative-legal, systematic, methods of analysis and synthesis, etc.), the choice of which was determined by the purpose and tasks of the research, its object and subject. The results. The article emphasizes that at the initial stages of the formation and development of European, in particular, German administrative law, the narrowing of discretion was not discussed in legal literature and law enforcement practice. However, the situation began to gradually change due to the strengthening of the importance and weight of fundamental rights, the observance of which during the exercise of discretionary powers is currently a mandatory standard. The author analyses the content of the duty of the administrative body to observe the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine within the limits of administrative procedures. It is emphasized that for its implementation, the administrative body must clarify all the circumstances of the case, acting on its own initiative. The duty to establish the circumstances of the case is limited by what the administrative body is able to do and what is expedient in each specific situation. Particular attention is paid to the question of how the legal position of the addressee of the planned administrative act (action) should be taken into account in view of the provisions of the Constitution when making a decision on the basis of discretional powers. The author analyses the content of the following constitutional (fundamental) rights and principles (the right to equal treatment, proportionality) and formulates the positions that the administrative body should consider Conclusions. The central criteria for observing the rights and freedoms of the addressee of the event are the duty of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality. Since the reduction of discretion or narrowing it to zero is the result of the influence of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the decision of an administrative body is considered legal if it was adopted within the available limits of discretion. And any other decision will be considered a significant interference with the addressee’s rights and freedoms and will no longer be proportionate. The same applies to the obligation to treat similar cases similar and treat different cases differently, because if the discretion of the administrative body is limited or reduced to zero, any other decision is a violation of the duty of equal treatment. These two criteria are clear requirements that administrative bodies must comply with when making decisions, and the verification of compliance with these criteria is carried out by administrative courts in accordance with Art. 2 KAS. This control applies to most cases of abuse of discretion, and therefore complex constructions of abuse of discretion are necessary only in some very special cases.
References
2. Zahalne administratyvne parvo [General administrative law]. Pidruchnyk. Vydannia druhe, zah. red. R. Melnyka, vyd. Helvetyka, Odessa (2023) [in Ukrainian].
3. Jellinek W. (1931), Verwaltungsrecht, 3. Aufl. [in German].
4. Nachdruck (1948), Verlag Springer, Berlin [in German].
5. Drews, B., Wacke, G. (1952), Allgemeines Polizeirecht, 6. Aufl. [in German].
6. Wolff, H.J., Bachof, O., Stober, R., Kluth, W. (2017). Verwaltungsrecht I, 13. Aufl. C.H. Beck München [in German].
7. Schneider, H. (1987). Die Reichsverfassung vom 11. August 1919, in: Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band 1, Hrsg. J. Isensee, P. Kirchhof, Verlag C. F. Müller, Heidelberg [in German].
8. Kampo, V. (2019). Konstytutsiia i stanovlennia konstytutsiinoi demokratii v Ukraini (2014–2018 roky) [Constitution and formation of constitutional democracy in Ukraine (2014–2018)]. Kyiv: Zelenyi pes [in Ukrainian].
9. Koziubra, M. (2006). Konstytutsiinyi idealizm ta konstytutsiinyi nihilizm yak proiavy defitsytu pravovoi kultury [Constitutional Idealism and constitutionalism Nihilism as a manifestation of deficiency legal culture]. Naukovi zapysky. Yurydychni nauky. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
10. Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar do proektu Zakonu Ukrainy “Pro administratyvnu protseduru” [Scientific and practical comment to the draft Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure”] / Avt. kolektyv Andriiko O.F., Bevzenko V.M. ta in., za zah. red. Tymoshchuka V.P. (2019). Kyiv: FOP Myshalov D.V. URL: https://pravo.org.ua/books/naukovo-praktychnyjkomentar-do-proektu-zakonu-ukrayiny-pro-administratyvnu-protseduru/ [in Ukrainian].
11. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy: Kodeks Ukrainy [Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine: Сode of Ukraine]. № 2747-IV: stanom na 31 hrud. 2023 r (2005). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15#Text [in Ukrainian].
12. Radyshevska, O.R. (2020). Administratyvne pravo Ukrainy v umovakh Yevropeizatsii [Administrative law of Ukraine in terms of Europeanization]. Monohrafiia. Kyiv: Talkom [in Ukrainian].
13. Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 102), in der Fassung vom 25. (2021). (BGBl. I S. 2154). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwvfg/ [in German].
14. Concerning the exercise of discretionary powers by administrative authorities: Recommendation no. r (80) 2. (1980). URL: https://rm.coe.int/16804f22ae [in German].
15. On the protection of the individual in relation to the acts of administrative authorities: Resolution (77) 31, (1977). URL: https://rm.coe.int/16804dec56 [in English].
16. Kopp, F., Ramsauer, U. (2021). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, 22. Aufl., C.H. Beck München [in German].
17. Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2000). № (2000/C 364/01). URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf [in English].
18. Maurice Alvis v Council of the European Economic Community. Judgment of the Court (First chamber) (1963). № Case 32/62. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61962CJ0032&from=EN [in English].
19. Report on the rule of law. Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 86th plenary session: Venice, 25–26 March 2011 (2011). P. 12 [in English].
20. Rishennia Pershoho senatu Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy u spravi za konstytutsiinymy skarhamy Baisheva Pavla Viktorovycha, Burlakovoi Olhy Oleksandrivny, Dats Iryny Viliamivny, Diedkovskoho Viacheslava Viktorovycha, Zhelizniaka Mykhaila Vasylovycha, Kozhukharovoi Liudmyly Anatoliivny shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstytutsii Ukrainy (konstytutsiinosti) punktiv 2, 3 rozdilu II “Prykintsevi polozhennia” Zakonu Ukrainy “Pro vnesennia zmin do deiakykh zakonodavchykh aktiv Ukrainy shchodo zaprovadzhennia kontraktnoi formy roboty u sferi kultury ta konkursnoi protsedury pryznachennia kerivnykiv derzhavnykh ta komunalnykh zakladiv kultury” [Resolution of the First Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on behalf of the constitutional appeal of Pavel Viktorovich Baishev, Olga Oleksandrivna Burlakova, Irina Vilyamivna Dats, Vyacheslav Viktorovich Dedkovsky, Mykhailo Zheliznyak Vasylovych, Kozhuharova and Lyudmila Anatolievna according to the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of paragraphs 2, 3 of section II Final Provisions of the law of Ukraine “On introducing changes to various legislative acts of Ukraine to promote the contractual form of work in the sphere of culture and the competitive procedure for recognizing the directors of state and municipal institutes of the culture”]: Rishennia Konstytutsytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 12.07.2019 r. № 5-r(I)/2019 (2019). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/va05p710-19#Text [in Ukrainian].
21. Konstytutsiine pravo Ukrainy [Constitutional law of Ukraine]. Pidruchnyk za zah. red. T.M. Slinko (2020). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
22. Giunter, D. (2017). Proekt praktychnoi systemy tsinnostei osnovnykh prav na os-novi chastyny pershoi statti 1 u poiednanni z chastynoiu druhoiu statti 19 Osnovnoho zakonu. Liudska hidnist: shcho my rozumiiemo pid “hidnistiu”, “liudynoiu” ta “liudskoiu hidnistiu”? [The project of a practical system of values of basic rights based on the first part of Article 1 in combination with the second part of Article 19 of the Basic Law. Human dignity: what we mean by “dignity”, “human being” and “human dignity”]. Materialy mizhnarodnoho naukovo-praktychnoho seminaru “Liudska hidnist u pravi Nimechchyny, Polshchi ta Ukrainy”, za pidtrymky Ministerstva zakordonnykh sprav Federatyvnoi respubliky Nimechchyna; Tsentr nimetskoho prava Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka; HO “Ukrainsko-nimetskyi pravoznavchyi dialoh”. Kyiv, 10–11 zhovtnia 2016 r. / vidpov. red. B. Shloer. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
23. Häberle, P. (1987). Die Menschenwürde als Grundlage der staatlichen Gemeinschaft. In: Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Band I Grundlagen von Staat und Verfassung, Hrsg. Isensee J., Kirchhof P., C.F. Müller Heidelberg [in German].
24. Metodyka vyrishennia yurydychnykh zadach (kazusiv): teoretychni ta praktychni aspekty: navch. posib [Methods of solving legal problems (cases): theoretical and practical aspects: teaching. manual] / B. Shloier, V. Poiedynok, I. Lukach, O. Kosilova; za zah. redaktsiieiu R. Melnyka (2020). Kherson: Helvetyka [in Ukrainian].
25. Ukhvala Vyshchoho administratyvnoho sudu Ukrainy [Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine] vid 28.02.2017 u spravi № K/800/33646/16 (2017). URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/65163116 [in Ukrainian].
26. Ukhvala Vyshchoho Administratyvnoho Sudu [Decision of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine] vid 11 liutoho 2016 u spravi № 800/40761/15 (2016). URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/55870533 [in Ukrainian].
27. Mahda, S.O. (2017). Do pytannia zakhystu administratyvnym sudom prav, svobod ta interesiv osoby v aspekti dyskretsiinykh povnovazhen []. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina, seriia PRAVO. Issue 23 [in Ukrainian].
28. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Beschluss vom 27.07.2015 – BVerwG 6 B 12.15, Nr. 25, 26 (2015). URL: https://www.bverwg.de/de/270715B6B12.15.0 [in German].
29. Rishennia KSU vid 27 liutoho 2018 roku № 1-r/2018 u spravi za konstytutsiinymy podanniamy 48 narodnykh deputativ Ukrainy shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstytutsii Ukrainy (konstytutsiinosti) polozhen abzatsiv trynadtsiatoho, chotyrnadtsiatoho punktu 32 rozdilu I Zakonu Ukrainy “Pro vnesennia zmin do Podatkovoho kodeksu Ukrainy ta deiakykh zakonodavchykh aktiv Ukrainy shchodo podatkovoi reformy” ta Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstytutsii Ukrainy (konstytutsiinosti) polozhennia abzatsu pershoho pidpunktu 164.2.19 punktu 164.2 statti 164 Podatkovoho kodeksu Ukrainy (sprava pro opodatkuvannia pensii i shchomisiachnoho dovichnoho hroshovoho utrymannia) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of February 27, 2018 No. 1-r/2018 in the case of constitutional submissions of 48 deputies of Ukraine regarding the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with the provisions of the thirteenth and fourteenth paragraphs of Section 32 of Chapter I of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine and some legislative acts of Ukraine on tax reform” and the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with the provisions of the first subparagraph of paragraph 164.2.19 of item 164.2 of Article 164 of the Tax Code of Ukraine (the case of taxation of pensions and monthly life support).] (2018). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v001p710-18#Text [in Ukrainian].
30. SPD.de: Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD). URL: https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Sonstiges/GG/artikel1_20_rus.pdf [in German].
31. Verwaltungsgericht Würzburg, Urteil v. 13.01.2020 – W 8 K 19.364 (2020). URL: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2020-N-318?hl=true [in German].
32. Verwaltungsgerichtshof München, Beschluss v. 20.11.2018 – 10 CE 18.1598 (2018). URL: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2018-N-32436?hl=true[in German].
33. Aufenthaltsgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 25. Februar 2008 (BGBl. I S. 162) in der Fassung vom 9. Juli 2021 (BGBl. I S. 2467) (2021). URL: https://www.gesetzeim-internet.de/aufenthg_2004/ [in German].
34. Judgement of the court of first instance from 8.07.2004 r., T-289/02 (2004). URL: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=49360&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1933168 [in English].
35. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Urteil vom 26.10.2017 BVerwG 8 C 18.16 VGH 6 S 1426/14 (2017). URL: https://www.bverwg.de/261017U8C18.16.0 [in German].
36. Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstytutsii Ukrainy (konstytutsiinosti) polozhen statti 69 Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy (sprava pro pryznachennia sudom bilsh m’iakoho pokarannia) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the case regarding the imposition of a milder punishment by the court) dated November 2, 2004 No. 15-рп/2004] vid 2 lystopada 2004 roku № 15-rp/2004 (2004). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v015p710-04 [in Ukraine].
37. Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam pravlinnia Pensiinoho fondu Ukrainy shchodo ofitsiinoho tlumachennia polozhen statti 1, chastyn pershoi, druhoi, tretoi statti 95, chastyny druhoi statti 96, punktiv 2, 3, 6 statti 116, chastyny druhoi statti 124, chastyny pershoi statti 129 Konstytutsii Ukrainy, punktu 5 chastyny pershoi statti 4 Biudzhetnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, punktu 2 chastyny pershoi statti 9 Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy v systemnomu zv’iazku z okremymy polozhenniamy Konstytutsii Ukrainy [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case based on the constitutional submission of the board of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the official interpretation of the provisions of Article 1, parts one, two, three of Article 95, part two of Article 96, points 2, 3, 6 of Article 116, part two of Article 124, part one Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Clause 5 of the first part of Article 4 of the Budget Code of Ukraine, Clause 2 of the first part of Article 9 of the Administrative Judicial Code of Ukraine in systematic connection with certain provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine dated January 25, 2012 No. 3-рп/2012.] vid 25 sichnia 2012 roku № 3-rp/2012 (2012). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v003p710-12#Text [in Ukraine].
38. Camenzind v. Switzerland. ECHR, decision from 16.12.1997 (136/1996/755/954) (1997). URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58125 [in English].
39. Pro Natsionalnu politsiiu: Zakon Ukrainy [About the National Police: Law of Ukraine] vid 02.07.2015 r. № 580-VIII: stanom na 1 sich. 2024 r (2015). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/580-19#Text [in Ukraine].
40. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Urteil des 3. Senats vom 4. Juli 2019Yu. BVerwG 3 C 24.17 (2019). URL: https://www.bverwg.de/040719U3C24.17.0 [in German].
41. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Urteil des 3. Senats vom 6. April 2016 – BVerwG 3 C 10.14 (2016). URL: https://www.bverwg.de/060416U3C10.14.0 [in German].
42. Betäubungsmittelgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 1. März 1994 (BGBl. I S. 358), in der Fassung vom 8. November 2021 (BGBl. I S. 4791) (2021). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/btmg_1981/.
43. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy, naukovo-praktychnyi komentar [Administrative Judicial Code of Ukraine, scientific and practical commentary], 3-tie vydannia (2009). Kyiv: Yustinian [in Ukraine].
44. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Urteil des 8. Senats vom 6. Mai 2020 – BVerwG 8. C 519 (2020). URL: https://www.bverwg.de/060520U8C5.19.0 [in German].
45. Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 23. Januar 2003 (BGBl. I S. 102), in der Fassung vom 25. Juni 2021 (BGBl. I S. 2154) (2021). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwvfg/ [in German].
46. VG Regensburg, Urteil v. 26.07.2018. RN 5 K 16.1733. URL: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2018-N-19484?hl=true [in German].
47. Administratyvnyi protses: zahalna chastyna (Federatyvna Respublika Nimechchyny, Ukraina) [Administrative process: general part (Federal Republic of Germany, Ukraine)]: Nauk.- prakt. posibnyk / Mann T., Melnyk R., Bevzenko V., Komziuk A.; per. ta adapt. z nim. Melnyka R.; za zah. red. Bevzenka V. (2013). Kyiv: Alerta [in Ukraine].
48. Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung vom 6. März 2013 (BGBl. I S. 367), in der Fassung vom 12. Juli 2021 (BGBl. I S. 3091) (2021). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/ [in German].