|
|
xi | |
|
|
xiii | |
Introduction |
|
1 | (2) |
|
|
|
|
Quality and Speed in Administrative Decision-Making: A German Case Study |
|
|
3 | (18) |
|
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
2 Quality of Decision-Making in Relation to the Speed of the Decision-Making Procedure |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
3 General Measures to Speed Up Administrative and Judicial Procedures |
|
|
5 | (3) |
|
3.1 Provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
3.2 Elimination of Preliminary Administrative Objection Proceedings |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
3.3 Elimination of Suspensive Effect |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
3.4 Restriction of the Right of Appeal |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
3.5 Federal Administrative Court as First and Last Instance |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
4 Measures to Speed Up Licensing Procedures under the Federal Emission Control Act and Infrastructure Planning Procedures |
|
|
8 | (5) |
|
4.1 The Relationship between Licensing Requirements and Length of Procedures |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
4.2 Measures Taken to Speed Up Licensing Procedures |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
4.2.1 Reduced Need for Licences under the Federal Emission Control Act |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 From Public Procedure to `Simplified' Procedure |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
4.2.3 Reducing the Number of Public Hearings |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
4.2.4 Loss of Standing in Case of Non-Participation |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
4.3 Measures in Infrastructure Planning Procedures |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
5 The Paradigm Shift after `Stuttgart 21' |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
6 The Impact of Accelerating Measures on the Quality of Decisions and on the Protection of Legal Rights of Third Parties |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
|
16 | (5) |
|
|
17 | (4) |
|
The Quest for Quality and Speed in Italian Administrative Law. Or the Tale of some Elusive Targets |
|
|
21 | (36) |
|
|
|
21 | (4) |
|
2 General Provisions Aimed at Speed and Quality in the Decision-Making Process |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
3 Measures Taken to Speed Up Decision-Making Procedures |
|
|
26 | (10) |
|
4 Exceptional Rules for Various `Emergency' Situations |
|
|
36 | (3) |
|
5 Rules for Major Infrastructural Projects |
|
|
39 | (2) |
|
|
41 | (3) |
|
|
44 | (13) |
|
|
47 | (10) |
|
Quality and Speed in Administrative Decision-Making: A French Case Study |
|
|
57 | (26) |
|
|
1 Speed and the French Concept of Public Administration |
|
|
59 | (5) |
|
1.1 A `Secondary' Objective |
|
|
60 | (2) |
|
|
62 | (2) |
|
2 Formal and Procedural Requirements: Quality versus Speed? |
|
|
64 | (6) |
|
2.1 The Obligation to State Reasons |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
2.2 Procedural Obligations |
|
|
65 | (3) |
|
2.3 The Single Authorization Mechanism |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
2.4 Exceptional Circumstances and Urgency |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
3 The Passing of Time and the Obligation to Enact an Administrative Act |
|
|
70 | (2) |
|
3.1 The Obligation to Act Within a Reasonable Time Period |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
3.2 The Obligation to Act Within a Set Time Period |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
4 The Passing of Time and the Implicit Enactment of an Administrative Act |
|
|
72 | (4) |
|
4.1 Developments in French Law |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
4.2 The Implicit Decisions Scheme |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
5 Judicial Proceedings Against Administrative Acts: Quality v. Speed? |
|
|
76 | (7) |
|
5.1 Preliminary Administrative Appeals |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
5.3 The Specifics of the Scheme Applicable to Urban Planning |
|
|
79 | (2) |
|
|
81 | (2) |
|
Planning for Major Infrastructure in England: Front-Loading Participation in the Interests of Efficiency |
|
|
83 | (30) |
|
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
2 Planning for Major Infrastructure: Representing Community and Environmental Interests |
|
|
84 | (3) |
|
3 The Background to the Planning Act 2008 |
|
|
87 | (4) |
|
4 The Planning Act 2008: An Outline |
|
|
91 | (4) |
|
5 The Experience of Public Participation in Planning for Nationally Significant Infrastructure |
|
|
95 | (8) |
|
5.1 National Planning Policy Statements (NPPSs) |
|
|
96 | (3) |
|
5.2 Pre-application Consultation |
|
|
99 | (2) |
|
5.3 The Examination in Public |
|
|
101 | (2) |
|
6 Access to Justice in Planning for Nationally Significant Infrastructure |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
|
106 | (7) |
|
|
109 | (4) |
|
Quality and speed in Judicial Procedures and Administrative Decision-Making: Environmental Permits in Sweden |
|
|
113 | (18) |
|
|
|
113 | (2) |
|
|
115 | (5) |
|
3 Procedure for Getting a Permit |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
4 How Long Does it Take to Get a Permit? |
|
|
121 | (3) |
|
5 Why Does it Take so Long to Get a Permit? |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
6 Reforming the Permit Regime |
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
7 What Can be Done to Increase Speed and Quality? |
|
|
126 | (5) |
|
|
128 | (3) |
|
Faster and Better!? Decision-Making in the Netherlands |
|
|
131 | (30) |
|
|
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
2 Acceleration Initiatives Concerning the Administrative Decision-Making Process |
|
|
135 | (6) |
|
2.1 Measures Taken to Speed Up Decision-Making |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 Integration of Approvals and One-Stop-Shop |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 Lex Silentio Positivo, Penalty Payments and Direct Appeal |
|
|
136 | (2) |
|
2.2 Shortening Time Limits of Decision-Making? |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
2.4 Deregulation and a Greater Role for Private Parties as a Way to Reduce Administrative Burdens |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
|
140 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 General Rules Instead of Tailor-Made Permits |
|
|
141 | (1) |
|
3 Legal Protection and Court Related Measures |
|
|
141 | (12) |
|
|
141 | (2) |
|
3.2 Acceleration Measures in General |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
3.2.1 Developments in Case Law |
|
|
143 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Legislative Developments |
|
|
144 | (1) |
|
3.2.3 How Do the Novel Instruments Work Out? |
|
|
145 | (1) |
|
3.2.4 Further Legislative Developments |
|
|
146 | (1) |
|
3.3 Measures for a Specific Area |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
3.3.1 Relativity Principle |
|
|
147 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Article 1.6(2) and Article 1.6a CRA |
|
|
148 | (1) |
|
3.3.3 Shortening Time Limits |
|
|
149 | (1) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
3.4.1 Court Fees and Costs |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
150 | (2) |
|
3.4.3 Restriction of Access for the Administration |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
3.5 Elimination of a Court Instance |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
4 The Role of International and European Law |
|
|
153 | (3) |
|
5 Overall Closing Remarks: What's the Demos Got to Do With It? |
|
|
156 | (5) |
|
|
157 | (4) |
|
|
161 | |
|
|
|
|
1 Quality and Speed of Decision-Making -- Some Introductory Remarks |
|
|
161 | (4) |
|
1.1 A Definition of Quality? |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
1.2 Quality and Speed -- Friends or Enemies? |
|
|
162 | (3) |
|
2 National Acceleration Trends, International Acceleration Pressures and Democratic Limitations |
|
|
165 | (4) |
|
2.1 The Need for Speed: Not a New Issue? |
|
|
165 | (1) |
|
2.2 The Role of International and European Law: Importantly Unequal and Unequally Important |
|
|
166 | (2) |
|
2.3 What Does the Demos Have to Do With It? |
|
|
168 | (1) |
|
3 Acceleration Initiatives Concerning the Administrative Decision-Making Process |
|
|
169 | (6) |
|
3.1 Measures Taken to Speed Up Decision-Making |
|
|
169 | (2) |
|
3.2 Shortening Decision-Making Time Limits |
|
|
171 | (1) |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
3.4 Deregulation and a Greater Role for Private Parties as a Way to Reduce Administrative Burdens |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
3.5 Special Regime of Major Infrastructure: in Search of More Speed |
|
|
174 | (1) |
|
4 Legal Protection and Court-Related Measures |
|
|
175 | (4) |
|
4.1 Measures to Speed Up Court Procedures |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
|
177 | (2) |
|
4.3 Elimination of the Compulsory Objection Procedure or of a Court Instance |
|
|
179 | (1) |
|
5 Administrative Decision-Making and Court Procedure: Substantially Quicker, but Qualitatively Better? |
|
|
179 | |
|
|
181 | |