The concept of the circular economy (CE) is currently gaining impetus as a way to move towards sustainable, low‐carbon, resource‐efficient, and competitive economies. However, despite the potential ...benefits of CE activities, their implementation remains relatively rare. We use a cross‐sectional survey of European small and medium‐sized firms (SMEs) to identify the main barriers firms face to promote the CE, focusing specifically on the following: those related to a lack of resources (human and financial) and capabilities (expertise) and those related to the regulatory framework (administrative procedures and the costs of meeting the regulations). Our results indicate that it is the complexity of administrative/legal procedures and the costs of meeting regulations/legal standards that constitute the most significant barriers, whereas the lack of human resources is also perceived to be an obstacle by firms engaged in CE activities. Those obstacles may be considered revealed barriers, and it is only when the firms become involved in these activities that they actually perceive them. Furthermore, when we consider the breadth of CE activities, administrative procedures and regulations once again emerge as the most significant obstacles. Finally, we stress the need to distinguish between different CE activities given that the perception of barriers differs substantially across these activities. Firms undertaking a disruptive innovation redesigning products and services to minimize the use of materials are more likely to perceive all barriers as important. However, firms implementing such activities as minimizing waste, replanning energy usage, and using renewable energy only perceive those obstacles related to administrative procedures and regulations.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Automated process control has been used for a long time. Innovation and information technology achievements have made it possible to use automation in the State governance. Algorithm-based automated ...decisions are integral part of the concept of e-Government. Automated decisions are becoming more and more prevalent in modern society of the EU. Using automated decisions in public administration is a challenge for Administrative Law, because it has to evolve and keep up with the usage of new technologies, keep the legal balance between the cost-efficiency and operational flexibility of the State in general and at the same time ensure the protection of rights of individuals in each Member State and in the EU as a whole. Estonia is EU Member State and its public sector uses automated decisions but there are no direct legal provisions regarding what automated decision is, what are the conditions for issuing them, what are the safeguards to avoid the violation of rights of individuals etc. The right to issue automated decision is based only on the authorisation norm stipulated in a specific act regulating the field of activity of administrative authority. The Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund is one of the administrative authorities which issues automated decisions in its field of activity. The aim of this paper is to examine and find out whether the automated decisions used by Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund comply with the general principles of administrative procedure and the EU rules on data protection but also to identify aspects where legal adjustment is needed and propose legislative amendments. The paper is based on the analysis of relevant scientific books, articles, legal acts, supported by relevant case law and other sources.
Eighty years on, we are seeing a resurgence of the antiregulatory and antigovernment forces that lost the battle of the New Deal. President Trump's administration has proclaimed the "deconstruction ...of the administrative state" to be one of its main objectives. Early Trump executive actions quickly delivered on this pledge, with a wide array of antiregulatory actions and a budget proposing to slash many agencies' funding. Invoking the long-dormant Congressional Review Act, the Republican-controlled Congress has eagerly repealed numerous regulations promulgated late in the Obama Administration. Other major legislative and regulatory repeals are pending, and bills that would impose the most significant restrictions on administrative governance since the Administrative Procedure Act was adopted in 1946 -- like the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act -- now stand a chance of enactment. This resistance to administrative government reflects antigovernment themes that have been a consistent presence in national politics since President Reagan's election in 1980.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NMLJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Judicial deference to executive statutory interpretation — a doctrine now commonly associated with the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council—is one of the central ...principles in modern American public law. Despite its significance, however, the doctrine's origins and development are poorly understood. The Court in Chevron claimed that the roots of judicial deference stem from statutory interpretation cases dating to the early nineteenth century. Others, by contrast, have sought to locate Chevron's doctrinal roots in judicial review's origins in the writ of mandamus. According to the standard narrative, courts in the pre-Chevron era followed a multifactor and ad hoc approach to issues of judicial deference; there was little theory that explained the body of cases; and the holdings and reasoning of the cases were often contradictory and difficult to rationalize. This Article challenges the standard account. It argues that the Supreme Court in Chevron, and scholarly commentators since, have misidentified nineteenth-century statutory interpretation cases applying canons of construction "respecting" contemporaneous and customary interpretation as cases deferring to executive interpretation as such. It further argues that, although the standard for obtaining a writ of mandamus was central to judicial review in the early Republic, statutory developments in the latter half of the nineteenth century (significantly, the enactment of general federal-question jurisdiction in 1875) ultimately mooted the relevance of that standard. Finally, it discusses the intellectual challenges to the traditional interpretive framework beginning in the early twentieth century; the Supreme Court's embrace of these intellectual challenges in the early 1940s; and Congress's attempt in the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) standard-of-review provision to reject the Court's interpretive experimentation and corresponding deviation from the traditional canons. The Article thus seeks to establish — contrary to the suggestion in Chevron and recent cases — that there was no rule of statutory construction requiring judicial deference to executive interpretation qua executive interpretation in the early American Republic. And it contends that the governing statute of administrative law—the APA—was intended to codify the traditional interpretive approach and to reject the experimentation of the 1940s Court. Taken together, these conclusions cast doubt on much of the received wisdom on the doctrinal basis for the rule announced in Chevron.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NMLJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
A comparative legal analysis of one of the stages of administrative procedure i.e. the stage of appeal against an administrative act has been carried out. The attention is focused on the study of the ...provisions of the FRG Law “On Administrative Procedure”, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Poland and the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure” regarding appealing against the results of administrative procedure. An analysis of the peculiarities of the mechanism for appealing against an administrative act within the framework of administrative procedure in Poland and Germany has been carried out, and a comparison has been made with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure”, and proposals have been provided for improving the provisions of the law which has not yet entered into force. It has been proved that the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure” should clarify the provisions on the subject of complaint consideration, given the lack of criteria to be taken into account when selecting the subject of complaint consideration. The Law provides for an alternative composition of the body which is authorised to consider complaints: 1) a higher-level administrative body, unless another entity is provided for by law; 2) a board for reviewing complaints.
We consider it expedient to move away from the concept of consideration of a complaint by a higher body, since administrative officials often violate the principle of impartiality and fairness when considering a complaint, and to establish that the subject of consideration of a complaint is a collective body – a commission formed by a higher-level administrative body, to provide for pre-trial resolution of a conflict (dispute), which involves individuals filing a complaint within the framework of an administrative appeal, as a mandatory condition, which will solve the problem of parallel judicial review. In order to expand the means of protection of rights and interests in the administrative procedure, it has been proposed to enshrine the right of a person to use mediation as an alternative to administrative appeal.
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) is a "super-statute," creating a robust, enduring governance structure for the modern regulatory state. An emerging literature on "APA originalism" ...maintains that some of the judge-created rules of administrative law are inconsistent with the APA's original public meaning and therefore illegitimate. In the context of notice-and-comment rulemaking, some academics and judges wield APA originalism as a reason to abrogate the presumption of judicial review, hard-look review of agency factual conclusions, and judicial deference to agency interpretations of law. Some of the judges who would apply original public meaning to those issues have asserted an even more aggressive judicial role to limit agency rulemaking that has large-scale social or economic impact.
In May 2018, Europe’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will apply across all European Union Member States.1 The GDPR is an ambitious, complicated, contested law aimed at making Europe ...‘fit for the digital age’.2 Among the law’s many provisions are several related to automated decision-making, notably, Article 22 and certain provisions of Articles 13–15. These provisions, which restrict automated decisions and require associated safeguards, are causing consternation among researchers, lawyers, and others concerned with decisions made by machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI). ML or AI systems are, among possible modes of decision-making, uniquely in danger of defying any human understanding.3 Automated decisions without any human intervention or understanding would seem to flout European ideas of autonomy and personhood.4 Therefore, these provisions exist to provide some meaningful information to data subjects about how their data is used. There is a fierce disagreement over whether these provisions create a data subject’s ‘right to explanation’. This article seeks to reorient that debate by showing that the plain text of the GDPR supports such a right.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, NUK, PRFLJ, UL, UM, UPUK
Twenty years ago, Justice Elena Kagan published 'Presidential Administration' in the 'Harvard Law Review'. Seventy-five years ago, President Harry Truman signed the 'Administrative Procedure Act' ...(APA). The most important statute in administrative law and Kagan's enormously influential article are like ships passing in the night. Kagan interrogated the fundamental question of how to control agency discretion. Yet she engaged with the APA only in passing. Her failure to recognize the APA's significance yielded an analysis that, with the benefit of twenty years' hindsight, stands as an apologia for the United States' continuing slide toward authoritarianism.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Emphasizing that administrative law must be understood within the context of the political system, this core text combines a descriptive systems approach with a social science focus. Author Kenneth ...F. Warren explains the role of administrative law in shaping, guiding, and restricting the actions of administrative agencies. Providing comprehensive coverage, he examines the field not only from state and federal angles, but also from the varying perspectives of legislators, administrators, and the public.
Substantially revised, the fifth edition features approximately one hundred new and current cases that place administrative law in the context of the Obama administration. Each chapter concludes with an edited exemplary case that highlights major themes and helps students understand important points made in the chapter. Using straightforward prose and avoiding unnecessary legal jargon, Administrative Law in the Political System, fifth edition provides students with an informed and accessible overview of a difficult subject matter.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a significant statute that serves as the foundation for administrative law. It is considered a superstatute and has quasi-constitutional character. While the ...standard account of the APA's emergence focuses on its political dimension and its role in preserving the New Deal, this overlooks the statute's internal logic and meaning. The APA was influenced by pre-APA administrative law and the procedures and practices of administrative agencies. The work of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, which examined existing federal administrative agencies, played a crucial role in shaping the APA. This essay examines the provisions of the APA and argues that it has been successful in rulemaking but has failed in adjudication. The goal of the APA was to establish uniform minimum procedures to reform agency practices and provide a framework for the future.
PDF
