Principle Of Legitimate Expectations Research Articles

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation & Proportionality: A Public Law Principle Adopted into the Private Law of Employment

This article examines the possible adoption of the public law principles of ‘legitimate expectation’ and the standard of ‘proportionality’ as the appropriate and cohesive legal approach to voluntary promises that are normally found in ostensibly non-contractual documents. The article argues that, allowing a further development into the principle of legitimate expectation, which has already been adopted in employment relations as a further development of the implied duty of trust and confidence, could enhance the courts’ approach to the issue of voluntary promises and avoid the unsatisfactory contractual solution that appears to produce inconsistent results. Giving particular consideration to the courts’ application of the proportionality test, thereby recognises an employee’s hierarchy of interests, when seeking to justify an employer’s decision, this article assesses how the influence of the proportionality standard can, and should, offer a more satisfactory solution when applied to resolving disputes.

The Principle of Legitimate Expectations and the Protection of Trust in the Polish Administrative Law

The Principle of Legitimate Expectations and the Protection of Trust in the Polish Administrative Law

Protection of Confidential Information in Case C-517/15 P <i>AGC Glass</i>

Inspired by Case C-517/17 P AGC Glass, this article discusses some topical matters regarding the protection of confidential information in competition law procedure and litigation, namely, the definition of confidential information, protection under leniency programme and the principle of legitimate expectations.

The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the Recovery of State Aid: On the Brink of a European and National Principle?

The principle of legitimate expectations is a general principle, recognized by the European Union and a large number of her Member States. However, there is not a semantic uniformity in the European legal order. This literature review will focus from a comparative perspective on the principle of legitimate expectations as it exists in Belgian, Dutch and Union Law, applied to the recovery procedure of State aid, where procedural autonomy is conceded to member states. The corollary of this multi-layered judicial process is a tension between the European and the national interpretation of legitimate expectations. The central issue in this literature review can be posed as follows: How is the legitimate expectations principle interpreted and applied in the EU, the Netherlands and in Belgium? How do they interact in the recovery procedure of State aid and what are their mutual influences?

Neusklađenost posebnih postupovnihodredbi u postupcima izvlaštenja sa Zakonom o općem upravnom postupku

The principle of consistency and principle of legitimate expectations of citizens are the basis for the treatment of administrative bodies of any national or supranational level. The purpose of this principle is that the administrative bodies, by applying the usual and publicly announced procedure, treat citizens in the same way. Harmonized and systematic procedures guarantee the legal security, certainty and protection of legitimate expectations of citizens. The Republic of Croatia adopted in 2009 a completely new procedural act precisely with the intent to ensure the application of these principles. However, the question is how far the provisions are in line with the general procedural regulation in the law-making process (following the adoption of a new General Administrative procedure Act). This paper analyse the procedural provisions of the Expropriation and Determining of Compensation Act (passed in 2014), and points to the unnecessary number of procedural provisions that are often incompatible with, or they are completely contrary to the General Administrative procedure Act.

Recovering Unlawful Advantages in the Context of EU State Aid Tax Ruling Investigations

The European Commission has recently begun focus increasingly on the compatibility of Member States’ tax ruling procedures with EU State aid law. In that respect, it has ordered the recovery of unlawfully granted advantages through those procedures. This article examines to what extent the application of EU law principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty are to take stock in State aid recovery proceedings of this particular legal certainty-enhancing and legitimate expectations creating tax ruling context. It additionally questions whether recovery in this particular context should be tailored to the specific national ruling framework having resulted in the advantage granted in violation of Article 107 TFEU.

El debate jurídico entorno a la tensión del principio de confianza legítima y la prevalencia del interés general.

En este artículo de reflexión se expone de manera teórica la tensión existente en el plano jurídico entre el principio de confianza legítima y el principio de prevalencia de interés general. Así pues, se analizan los diferentes criterios de interpretación que ha utilizado la Corte constitucional para su resolución, en casos tan especiales como el de ocupación del espacio público por parte de vendedores estacionarios.

Regulación y confianza legítima

This study analyses the influence of the institutions and techniques of the economic regulation of Administrative Law, imported mainly through European Union Law. Furthermore, this study also focuses on the problem of the regulatory instability as well as on the guarantees of rights through the principle of legitimate expectations.

Promiseee Right to Bound Public Authorities to Their Promise: The Debate between the Doctrine of Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation

It is common place that public authorities sometimes give assurance to individual or group of citizen such as postponing development project, relocation, provision of benefits etc. As public administrative does not exist only to serves the interest of the representee, the rights and interest of others must be considered as well. Hence the ability of representee to enforce promises made by the authorities denotes administrative consistency and trust for the government. Traditionally, the representor is prevented by the private law doctrine of estoppel from resiling. However, the principle has gradually shifted towards collectivism. This essay revisit the principle behind the traditional doctrine and the current principle of legitimate expectation. In view of gradual acceptance of the latter, this essay discusses the viability of abolishing the traditional doctrine and the possible effect to future claims.

Fines esenciales del estado, pilar fundamental en la aplicación del principio de la confianza legítima

En el presente artículo exteriorizamos los resultados de una ardua investigación científica basada en la vulneración al principio de la confianza legítima, lo que se hizo evidente en el incumplimiento de la Administración Distrital a la hora de consumar los compromisos pactados con los habitantes del Barrio Juan José Rondón, afectados por la ola invernal del año 2010, que impacto la calidad de vida de los administrados e irrumpió en el debido gestionar de la Administración. Se logró comprobar por parte de los investigadores que la dimensión del Derecho aquí afectada es la eficacia, puesto que el Distrito al no dar la aplicabilidad debida a los actos jurídicos emanados por él mismo, descuidó la naturaleza jurídica a estos destinada y no produjo los efectos obligantes para ambas partes (Administración-administrado). Al realizar el análisis exhaustivo del problema de investigación desde la campo de la sociología jurídica y utilizando como herramienta imprescindible la Teoría de las tres esferas de Robert Alexy, se llegó a la conclusión descollante de que una evaluación de la gestión administrativa con fundamento en los fines esenciales del Estado (novedad científica) permitiría validar el cumplimiento del principio de la confianza legítima, piedra angular en la relación Estado- Ciudadano.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a concept which has been evolved to exercise control over the discretionary power conferred on executive. This doctrine imposes a duty on public authority taking into consideration the entire relevant factor relating to such expectation. The origin of legitimate expectation can be traced in German concept of Vertrauenschutz – the protection of trust. Legitimate expectation includes expectation which goes beyond an enforceable right, provided it has some reasonable basis. Expectation may be based upon some express statement, or undertaking by or on behalf of public authority which has the duty of making the decision or from the existence of regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. The basic principle of legitimate expectation was explained by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Union V/s. Minister for the Civil Service.

Energías renovables y riesgo regulatorio

La producción de energía eléctrica desde fuentes renovables está sometida a un marco normativo extraordinariamente cambiante, no exento además de un alto grado de complejidad normativa. En el presente trabajo se exponen, por una parte, los sucesivos marcos normativos en la materia y por otra, la respuesta de la jurisprudencia en relación con las siguientes cuestiones: a) las condiciones que deben darse para que el necesario dinamismo del ordenamiento jurídico en esta materia se vea armonizado con el principio de seguridad jurídica; b) en qué medida puede considerarse ajustada al ordenamiento jurídico las normas que imponen un nuevo régimen retributivo a los titulares de instalaciones existentes, lo que se resuelve mediante la correcta aplicación del principio de irretroactividad; c) en qué medida el alto grado de mutabilidad normativa afecta a las expectativas económicas de los titulares de las instalaciones cuyas decisiones se adoptaron apoyándose en un determinado marco regulatorio, lo que nos lleva al análisis del principio de confianza legítima.

Europeanization of Legal Principles? The Influence of the CJEU’S Case Law on the Principle of Legitimate Expectations in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Europeanization, from a legal point of view, denotes the process by which national rules and structures are influenced by EU law and case law. Administrative law is a crucial field of law affected by the EU. The general principles of administrative law, developed in all Member States to safeguard the adherence to the rule of law by the government, are no exception to this. By examining the principle of legitimate expectations in two Member States, namely the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this article reviews to what extent national legal principles have been influenced by the case law of the CJEU and whether the Court's interpretation is reflected in the corresponding national legal principles. This assessment is compared to the principle of legitimate expectations as developed by the CJEU, after which the influence of the Court on the possible (dis)similarities is discussed. In the second part, this paper reflects on the theory of legal autonomy and its portrayal of the Court as an integration actor, and its relation to the influence of the CJEU on the interpretation of legal principles.

A Paradox in the Making: Detecting Something Positive in UPA Under the Ten Kate Effect

Abstract: The European Court of Justice has persisted in adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of Article 230(4) EC and that persistence has reached its apogee in the UPA decision, while at the same time it was mirrored in the relevant provisions of the draft Constitution. Therefore, it is surprising to see that in the aftermath of UPA, there can be something positive that can be explored further and that can be tested in order to establish whether any indirect, alas limited, liberalisation of the standing criteria is possible. The Ten Kate case established that, in principle, a Member State could be under an obligation under domestic law to challenge the validity of Community legislation. If the state, in all of its different manifestations, fails to challenge the validity of a Community measure when such an obligation arises under municipal law, then the citizen could be in a position to claim compensation. Therefore, the case introduces the doctrine of state liability and the agency analogy (with the state representing the individual or as parens patriae) as connected paths trying to circumvent the standing restrictions. The advantage is that the proceedings would take place under national law and would be detached from the Plaumann conditions. It is proposed that constitutionally entrenched human rights, like effective judicial protection, combined with the principle of legitimate expectation, could create the legal basis for an obligation of the state under national law to challenge the validity of Community norms. The paradox is that effective judicial protection was the exact argument that the European Court of Justice sidelined in UPA.

Problems of the Implementation of the Principles of Legitimate Expectations, Legal Certainty and Legal Safety in the Sphere of Higher Education

Problems of the Implementation of the Principles of Legitimate Expectations, Legal Certainty and Legal Safety in the Sphere of Higher Education

A study of the notion of legitimate expectations in State aid recovery proceedings: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”?

Although the protection of legitimate expectations is a well–known doctrine of EU law and is, as such, regularly applied by Community courts, its boundaries in the particular field of State aid are remarkably unclear. The case law relating to the application of this doctrine appears at first sight to be ambiguous and even sometimes incoherent. This seems to have led several commentators to conclude that applicants seeking the benefit of the protection of legitimate expectations should, if not renounce altogether, at least abandon almost all hopes of succeeding in such an endeavour. On the basis of a near–comprehensive study of the relevant case law and decision practice, this paper will try to show (i) that, once a rationalization effort is performed, the conditions of a successful legitimate expectation claim appear more clearly; and most importantly (ii) that the EU institutions in charge of State aid control (principally the Commission and the Community courts) are not indifferent – far from it – to claims based on the notion of legitimate expectations. Therefore, it will be argued that recipients of unlawful State aids should study carefully the conditions of application of the principle of legitimate expectation, for there is still a case for hope.