Criteria for Assessing Administrative Discretion: Theoretical Issues, Russian and Foreign Experience

The current stage of development of administrative law requires an active role of public administration in resolving administrative cases. At the same time, its acts and actions must be controlled by the courts. As a result, the administration is not allowed to remain passive in the exercise of discretionary powers, since they are provided for solving managerial tasks and are implemented within the prescribed limits. In this regard, the managerial goal, for which discretion is used, and the limits of authority are presented as basic criteria that allow us to assess the legality of discretionary forms of public administration. Additional criteria must be used to verify them. The most important among them are the so-called principles of administrative procedures, primarily proportionality and protection of trust. The principles that define the procedure can also be used, they can be called technical. For example, these include avoiding excessive bureaucracy, saving money, etc. Basic and additional criteria are typical for many legal systems and are most justified in the theory of administrative procedures. It mainly characterizes the administrative law of the countries of the continental legal family, and relatively stable examples of its implementation are presented in the German and Austrian legal order. Of some interest are the new laws on procedures adopted already in our century in the countries of Central Asia (the Kazakh authorities were the last to do so). The adoption of laws on administrative procedures is a milestone in the development of the theory of administrative discretion, but it is more important that the approach to discretion is not denied by the courts. The practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is a positive step in approving the domestic version of administrative discretion and the theory of administrative procedures, which is developing in a continental way.

1. Chenerelli A. Hercules against the Lernaean Hydra, or the Court and Discretionary Administrative Authority. Zhurnal administrativnogo pravosudiya. 2021;2:29-34. (In Russ.).

2. Davydov KV. Administrative procedures: Russian and foreign experience: A monograph. Novosibirsk: Akademizdat Publ.; 2020. (In Russ.).

3. De Falko V. Administrative action and procedures in comparative law. Eleven International Publishing; 2018.

4. Dolzhikov A, Vasilyeva A. «Why? Just Because!» The principle of validity in administrative law. Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2023;6(157):33-65. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2023-6-33-65.

5. Jellinek W. Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1931.

6. Kravets IA. Constitutional law and teleology: Subject matter and method of meta-discipline, scope of constitutionalization and interdisciplinary harmonization. Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2018;11:131- 147. (In Russ.).

7. Kustov SS. The principle of protecting trust: Formation of the doctrine and practice of law enforcement in Russia. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo» [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Law Series]. 2023;2(53):53-61. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/law/19955502/2023/2/53-61.

8. Povarov YuC. Administrative and discretionary procedure for determining the need for prior approval of transactions by foreign investors. Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie [State Power and Local Self-Government]. 2023;12:39-44. (In Russ.).

9. Schmidt-Assmann E. Codification of legislation on administrative procedures: Traditions and models. In: Yearbook of Public Law — 2017: Discretion and evaluative concepts in administrative law. Moscow; Infotropik Media Publ.; 2012. Pp. 332–362. (In Russ.).

10. Schmidt-Aßmann E. Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee: Grundlagen und Aufgaben der verwaltungsrechtlichen Systembildung. Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer; 2006.

11. Sherstoboev ON. Theory of administrative discretion: Stages of formation. Sibirskoe yuridicheskoe obozrenie [Siberian Law Review]. 2023;20(2):158-173. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2023-20-2-158-173.

12. Solovey YuP. Discretion in the administrative activities of the Soviet police. Cand. Diss. (Law). Moscow; 1982. (In Russ.).

13. Starilov YuN. Conservatism of legal policy as a guarantee of progress in the field of administrative and other public legal relations. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo» [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Law Series]. 2023;1(52):7-32. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/law/1995- 5502/2023/1/7-32.