Potentials of Administrative Procedures as a Participatory Tool within Governance Models in Central and Eastern Europe

  • 1 University of Ljubljana, SI-1000, Ljubljana


Good public governance requires participative networking to tackle the worst societal problems. Redefined administrative procedure as an instrument that should ensure efficient public policies is one of the key approaches in this respect. The objective of this article is to show, based on qualitative research methods, that in modern public administration, procedure is attributed a much different role than under the traditional Rechtsstaat doctrine. It has been evolving towards becoming a dialogue tool for the state and the citizens, increasingly recognised in Neo-Weberian and good governance models, also in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Administrative procedure’s modernised codification in CEE countries, grounded in public administration theory, EU and case law, is in this article seen as of the utmost importance to apply in the region to develop its governance capacity. The article addresses said issues and provides a specific outline as to how to systematically and proportionally codify administrative procedural law in this sense on a national scale. The author proposes a concrete, holistic outline to redefine respective codification within contemporary public governance models. This outline incorporates minimum joint fundamental principles, e.g. the right to be heard. Following the principle of proportionality, in addition a more detailed codification is suggested by more formalised proceedings in the case of the collision of legally protected interests. The principles, such as participation, would apply for any administrative acts, resulting from legislative policy-making or single-case decision-making, and judicial reviews thereof alike. Such an approach should ensure a balanced recognition and effective protection of parties and public interest.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Auby, J.-B. (ed.) (2014). Codification of Administrative Procedure. Brussels: Bruylant.

  • Bevir, M. (ed.) (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Governance. Los Angeles, etc.: SAGE. Council of Europe. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from http://www.coe.int/

  • Dunlop, C. A., Radaelli, C. M. (2016). Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

  • European Parliament (2016). Resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration (2016/2610(RSP)). Retrieved November 2, 2018, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0279+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  • Galetta, U.-D., Hofmann, H. C. H., Puigpelat, O. M., Ziller, J. (2015). The General Principles of EU Administrative Procedural Law. Brussels: European Parliament.

  • Galligan, D., Langan R. H. II, Nicandrou, C. S. (1998). Administrative Justice in the New European Democracies: Case Studies of Administrative Law and Process in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Ukraine. Oxford: Open Society Institute, Constitutional and Legislative Policy Institute, the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford.

  • Harlow, C., Rawlings, R. (1997). Law and Administration. London, Edinburgh, Dublin: Butterworths.

  • Hofmann, H. C. H., Mihaescu, B. C. (2013). The Relation between the Charter’s Fundamental Rights and the Unwritten General Principles of EU Law: Good Administration as the Test Case. European Constitutional Law Review, 2013(9), 73–101.

  • Hofmann, H. C. H., Schneider, J.-P., Ziller, J. (eds.) (2014). The ReNEUAL Model Rules. ReNEUAL. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from www.reneual.eu.

  • Kovač, P. (2016). The requirements and limits of the codification of administrative procedures in Slovenia according to European trends. Review of central and east European law, 41(3/4), 427–461.

  • Kovač, P. (2011). Modernizing administrative procedural law in Slovenia as a driving force of efficient and good administration. The NISPAcee journal of public administration and policy, 4(2), 39–66.

  • Kovač, P., Bileišis, M. (eds.) (2017). Public Administration Reforms in the Eastern European Union MS: Post-Accession Convergences and Divergences. Mykolas Romeris University, Faculty of Administration, Vilnius, Ljubljana, https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-GOZLT0QL/dc9c67f3-b6ef-4ddb-8f03-28ef0dd1deb2/PDF.

  • Kovač, P., Rakar I., Remic, M. (2012). Upravno-procesne dileme pri rabi ZUP 2 [Administrative-procedural Dilemmas in Use of the APA, 2]. Ljubljana: Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia.

  • Koprić, I., Ðulabić, V. (eds.) (2009). Modernizacija općeg upravnog postupka i javne uprave u Hrvatskoj [Modernisation of General Administrative Procedure and Public Administration in Croatia]. Zagreb: Institute of Public Administration.

  • Koprić, I. (2005). Administrative Procedures on the Territory of Former Yugoslavia, Regional Workshop on Public Administration Reform and EU Integration, Budva. Retrieved November 1, 2017, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/20/36366473.pdf.

  • Künnecke, M. (2007). Tradition and Change in Administrative Law: an Anglo-German Comparison. Berlin, New York: Springer.

  • Meuwese, A., Schuurmans, Y., Voermans,W. (2009). Towards a European Administrative Procedure Act. Review of European Administrative Law, 2(2), 16–22.

  • OECD. (2017). Principles of Public Administration. Paris: OECD. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://www.sigmaweb.org/publications/principles-public-administration.htm.

  • Ongaro, E., van Thiel, S. (eds.). 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Pavčnik, M. (2007). Teorija prava [Theory of Law]. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.

  • Perrou, K. (2014). Taxpayer Participation in Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution. Amsterdam: IBFD.

  • Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. (eds.) (2005). Handbook of Public Administration. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: SAGE.

  • Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G., Randma-Liiv, T., Drechsler, W. (eds.) (2008/2009). The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy. Special Issue: A Distinctive European Model? The Neo-Weberian State 1(2).

  • Rose-Ackerman, S., Lindseth, P. L. (eds.) (2010). Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.

  • Rusch, W. (2014). Citizens First: Modernisation of the System of Administrative Procedures in South-Eastern Europe. Croatian and Comparative Public Administration, 14(1), 189–228.

  • Sever, T., Rakar I., Kovač, P. (2013). Protecting human rights through fundamental principles of administrative procedures in Eastern Europe. Danube: Law and Economics Review, 5(4), 249–275.

  • Schuppert, G. F. (2000). Verwaltungswissenschaft (Verwaltung, Verwaltungsrecht, Verwaltungslehre). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

  • Statskontoret. (2005). Principles of Good Administration in the Member States of the European Union. Stockholm: Statskontoret.

  • Venice Commission – European Commission for Democracy through Law, 2011. Stocktaking on the Notions of »Good Governance« and »Good Administration«, Study no. 470/2008, CDL-AD(2001)009.

  • Vigoda, E. (2002). From Responsiveness to Collaboration: Governance, Citizens, and the Next Generation of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 527–540.

  • Vintar, M., Rosenbaum, A., Jenei, G., Drechsler, W. (eds.) (2013). The Past, Present and the Future of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: NISPAcee Press.


Journal + Issues