Advanced search
Publication Cover
South African Journal on Human Rights Volume 18, 2002 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
64
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Procedural Deficiencies in Administrative Law: A Comparative Analysis

Rainer GroteMax Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg. This article is based on research commissioned by GTZ-Legislative Drafting Project.
(Researcher)
Pages 475-504 | Published online: 02 Feb 2017

  • W Gardner ‘The Procedures by which Informal Action is Taken’ (1972) 24 Administrative LR 156.
  • The landmark decision here is Goldberg v Kelly 397 US 259 (1970). On the procedural due process ‘revolution’ that started with this decision see J Mashaw et al Administrative Law 4ed (1998), 296–323; H Friendly ‘Some Kind of Hearing’ (1975) 123 Univ of Pennsylvania LR 1267.
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park Inc v Volpe 401 US 402 (1972).
  • Mathews v Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976).
  • Wiseman v Borneman [1969] 3 All ER 275 at 278 (per Lord Morris).
  • Examples are s 3(2)(b)(iii) (clear statement of the administrative action), (iv) (adequate notice of any right to review) and (v) (adequate notice of the right to request reasons) of the AJA.
  • For example, s 3(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (notice and hearing requirements) and s 6(2)(a)(iii) (review for bias) of the AJA.
  • C Ladenburger Verfahrensfehlerfolgen im deutschen und im französischen Verwaltungsrecht (1999) 160.
  • See III(b) below.
  • E Schmidt-Assmann & H Krämer ‘Das Verwaltungsverfahren und seine Folgen’ European Review of Public Law Special Number (1993) 99, 121. In French law, however, the rules applicable to individual measures would also seem to apply to administrative norms since French administrative law does not distinguish between individual administrative decisions and decisions of a general character.
  • § 59 Law on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz). For a description of the German administrative law system see R Pfaff & H Schneider ‘The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act from a German Perspective’ (2001) 17 SAJHR 59, 61–5.
  • Schmidt-Assmann & Kramer (note 10 above). In case of procedural defects, however, the declaration to be bound that is made by the administration, which is regarded as a separate act, has to be quashed first before the nullity of the contract can be invoked.
  • On the drafting history of the AJA, see I Currie & J Klaaren The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Benchbook (2001) [1.9].
  • But see the arguments given in favour of including rulemaking in the scope of the AJA by Currie & Klaaren (ibid) [2.38],
  • § 42 (1) Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung).
  • Articles 230, 231 EC Treaty.
  • CE (Conseil d'Etat) 29 January 1947, Brevet; 13 February 1948, Didierjean; JJ Israel La réguiarisation en droit administratif franfais (1981) 45–55.
  • A de Laubadère et al Traité de droit administratif (vol 1) 13 ed (1994) para 717.
  • Israel (note 17 above) 58; A Calogéropoulos ‘Le contrôie de la légalité externe des actes administratifs unilatéraux’ (1983) 233.
  • Ladenburger (note 8 above) 14.
  • Goldberg v Kelly (note 2 above).
  • Note 3 above.
  • Ibid 420.
  • 54 BVerwGE 274, 280; 66 BverwGE 111, 113; 66 BVerwGE 184, 189.
  • F Schnapp & A Cordewemer ‘Welche Rechtsfolgen hat die Fehlerhaftigkeit eines Verwaltungsakts?’ (1999) 39 Juristische Schulung 147, 149.
  • J Bader ‘Die Heilung von Verfahrens-und Formfehlern im verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahren’ (1998) 17 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 674, 677; F Hufen ‘Heilung und Unbeachtlichkeit von Verfahrensfehlern’ (1999) 39 JuS 313, 317.
  • Bader (note 26 above).
  • S De Smith et al Principles of Judicial Review (1999) para 9–021.
  • Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574.
  • Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625.
  • Ibid 669 (per Lord Woolf).
  • France v Commission Case 15/76 and others [1979] ECR 321, 336; see further Kergall v Assembly Case 1/55 [1954–56] ECR 151, 157. In the Hoffmann-La Roche decision (Case 85/76, ECR 461, 512) the ECJ had argued, however, that irregularities in the proceedings brought by the Commission against an undertaking under Regulation 17 do not necessarily lead to the annulment of the contested decision if they are put right during the proceedings before the Court. The decision has been criticized as lacking a reliable basis in the legal orders of the Member States, see J Schwarze European Administrative Law (1992) 1424. It is doubtful whether this criticism is still valid given the recent trends in English but also in German administrative law described in the text. The Court's reasoning in Hoffmann-La Roche, however, has been subsequently rejected by Advocate-General Warner in his conclusions in Distillers Co v Commission Case 30/78 [1980] ECR 2229, 2297; it is therefore questionable whether Hoffmann-LaRoche is still good law on this point.
  • Schwarze (note 32 above) 1426.
  • TC Hartley The Foundations of European Community Law 4ed (1998) 412.
  • See the analysis of the discussion about the scope of § 46 LAP before the 1996 reform by H Hill Das fehlerhafte Verfahren und seine Folgen im Verwaltungsrecht (1986) 110–11.
  • 62 BVerwGE 108, 116.
  • See 56 BVerwGE 230, 233 on the jurisprudence prior to the coming into force of the LAP; 75 BVerwGE 214, 228; 91 BVerwGE 262, 270 on its persisting relevance under the statutory regulation.
  • For a critical comment on the attempt to increase administrative efficiency by limiting the practical impact of procedural law on the validity of administrative decisions, see Hufen (note 26 above) 315.
  • U Stelkens et al Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz 5ed (1998), § 46 para 89; F Kopp & U Ramsauer Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz 7ed (2000) § 46 para 25; Hufen (note 26 above).
  • BVerwG, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1998, 395 (398).
  • L Neville Brown & J Bell French Administrative Law 5ed (1998) 239–50.
  • R Chapus Droit administratif général (vol 1) 6ed (1992) para 1077; de Laubadère et al (note 18 above) para 893.
  • Laubadère et al (note 18 above) para 714; Calogéropoulos (note 19 above) 187–217.
  • J-M Auby ‘Les moyens inopérants dans la jurisprudence administrative’ (1966) 22 Actualité Juridique du Droit Administratif 5, 7.
  • Ladenburger (note 8 above) 168–82.
  • This principle was first developed in the conclusions of the commissaire du gouvernment Guldner in the Brissaud case, 13 AJDA II, 397 (1957). Although there have been few applications of the principle in the recent case law of the Conseil d'Etat, it is generally recognised that the ‘Guldner doctrine’ is good law, see Israel (note 17 above) 99.
  • D Chabanol ‘Contrôle de légalité et liberté de l'administration’ (1984) 40 AJDA 14, 16.
  • CE 9 October 1981, Beherec.
  • CE 9 April 1986, Faugeroux.
  • Ladenburger (note 8 above) 192. This jurisprudence has been criticised in the literature as unnecessarily complicated, see Chapus (note 42 above) para 1077.
  • Calogéropoulos (note 19 above) 237–38.
  • JB Auby & R Drago Traité des recours en matière administralif (1992) para 230; J Moreau Droit administratif 1989) para 129.
  • CE 28 May 1965, Demoiselle Riffault.
  • CE 10 July 1954, Féderation des conseils de parents d'elèves des ecoles publiques; 31 December 1976, Comité de défense des riverains de l'aéroport Paris-Nord.
  • Ladenburger (note 8 above) 165.
  • CE 6 November 1957, Syndicat chrétien des agents du ministre de la reconstructionet de l'urbanisme; 15 July 1958, Lavergne; 11 January 1980, Laveau.
  • Syndicat chrétien (note 56 above); 3 December 1971, Branger.
  • Calogéropoulos (note 19 above) 199–200.
  • CE 26 November 1976, Soldini; 13 July 1979, Société les productions du Chesne.
  • CE 19 May 1983, Bertrand; 22 April 1988, Commune de Saint-Jean de Védas.
  • CE 8 March 1983, Department de la Charente-Maritime.
  • D Foulkes Administrative Law 8ed (1995) 273.
  • R v London Borough of Lambeth, ex parte Sharp [1988] 55 P & CR 232.
  • See Foulkes (note 62 above) 274–78.
  • Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council v Palmer and Bowles [1982] 81 LGR 678.
  • R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning [1985] 84 LGR 168.
  • London and Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1979] 3 All ER 876.
  • See the statement of Lord Wright in General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627, 644–45: ‘If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is, indeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice”.
  • Glynn v Keele University [1971] I WLR 487; R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte Argyll [1986] 1 WLR 763.
  • R v Registrar of Building Societies [1960] 1 WLR 669; John v Rees [1970] Ch 345.
  • Wilson v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 WLR 1083.
  • Lake District Special Planning Board v Secretary of State for the Environment [1975] JPL 220.
  • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 (per Lord Hewart).
  • De Smith et al (note 28 above) para 9–034.
  • Geist v Commission Case 117/81 [1983] ECR 2191, 2207.
  • ACF Chemiefarma v Commission Case 41/69 [1970] ECR 661, 686.
  • Musique Diffusion Frančaise v Commission Case 100/80 and others [1983] ECR 1825, 1885; AEG v Commission, Case 107/82 [1983] ECR 3151, 3193.
  • Schwarze (note 32 above) 1428.
  • G Robinson et al The Administrative Process 4ed (1993) 37; P Verkuil ‘A Study of Informal Adjudication Procedures’ (1976) 43 Univ of Chicago LR 739, 744.
  • Robinson et al (note 79 above) 38.
  • Mathews v Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976) 334–35.
  • Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill 470 US 532 (1985).
  • Goss v Lopez 419 US 565 (1975).
  • Gilbert v Homar 117 SCt 1807 (1997).
  • §113(1) CACP: ‘To the extent that an administrative act is unlawful and through it the rights of the plaintiff have been infringed, the court shall quash the administrative act…’.
  • This is of little relevance in cases where the administrative act is directly addressed to the plaintiff since his constitutional right to personal freedom as construed by the courts offers comprehensive protection against any burden imposed on him by an official decision or measure which is formally or materially illegal: see 6 BVerfGE 32. It severely restricts the possibilities of third parties, however, to invoke the violation of procedural requirements before the courts.
  • M Singh German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective 2ed (2001) 176–81.
  • Ibid 158.
  • Neville Brown & Bell (note 41 above) 167–69.
  • CE 5 May 1899, Cook et fils.
  • CE 8 February 1908, Abbé Deliard.
  • CE 13 July 1948, Association des anciens elèves de l'ecole poly technique.
  • CE 21 December 1906, Syndicat des propriétaires du quartier Croix-de-Seguey-Tivoli.
  • De Smith et al (note 28 above) para 2–020.
  • For example, R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995) 1 WLR 386.
  • R v Boundary Commission, ex parte Foot [1983] QB 600.
  • J Schwarze ‘Verfahrensfehlerfolgen im deutschen und französischen Verwaltungsrecht’ (1999) 52 Revue administrative No. spéc. 7; 46, 52–3 sees in this principle one of the main structural reasons for the stricter control of procedural deficiencies in French law when compared with German law.
  • Chabanol (note 47 above); Ladenburger (note 8 above) 188–90.
  • J-M Woehrling ‘Die französische Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit im Vergleich mit der deutschen’ (1985) 4 NVwZ 21, 24; V Schiette Die verwaltungsgerichtliche kontrolle von verwaltungsakten in Frankreich (1991) 56.
  • See the wording of § 113(1) reproduced in note 85 above.
  • De Smith et al (note 28 above) para 9–031.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.