Substantive Principles in Public Administration

Focuses on the content of governmental decisions, examining if they are correct, just and reasonable, understanding the specific limits on government powers.

Administrative actions must always be constrained by laws, typically passed by legislatures or similarly legal bodies. Courts have a role checking government excesses.

There are inherent limitations to what governments can do even if they follow correct processes (procedure).

Decisions made by government bodies can and should be challenged when incorrect, unjust, or unreasonable; This involves ensuring government bodies know their power limitations.

Common requirement across European systems: governmental actions are always bound by the law, regardless of procedural compliance.

A system where government actions are always bound by law and individuals have protected rights. Power is limited, stemming from the people.

The administration can only act if there's a legal basis for its actions. The legislature gives power and sets limits.

Even basic decisions made by the government must follow the rule of law and be based on the law.

In a democracy, ultimate power resides with the citizens, and the government can only act based on the authority given to it.

Government actions must always be within the boundaries set by law. This includes all levels of decision-making.

The rule of law ensures that government actions are constrained by written laws, protecting individual rights and preventing abuse of power.

The European Union considers the rule of law essential, with courts ensuring administrative accountability.

The administration must be answerable to the courts for its actions, ensuring procedural fairness and legal conformity.

A core EU law principle requiring clear and precise rules, allowing individuals to easily understand their rights and obligations.

Legal acts published in the EU's Official Journal take effect on the specified date or 20 days after publication.

Generally, EU law cannot be applied retroactively, meaning it cannot affect events that happened before it was published.

There are exceptions when EU law can be applied retroactively if the purpose requires it, and it respects legitimate expectations.

When EU law is applied retroactively, individuals' rights and interests must be considered to ensure fair treatment.

In cases of retroactive effect, the public interest in the new law is balanced against the individual's interest in the existing legal situation.

For EU law to be applied retroactively, it must be clear that the legislature intended this from the law's wording or its general scheme.

Exceptions to retroactive application only exist if the purpose of the law demands it, and it respects legitimate expectations.

In general, EU laws that were validly created cannot be canceled or revoked.

Invalid EU regulations can be withdrawn if done within a reasonable time and considering the reliance of those affected.

EU citizens have a right to rely on valid EU laws and decisions, creating expectations that should be protected.

To prove legitimate expectations, one must show they justifiably relied on the law or decision and were directly affected by it.

EU actions should be no more extensive than necessary to achieve the stated goals.

EU actions must be (1) appropriate to the goal, (2) the least restrictive method, and (3) balanced against any negative impacts.

EU actions must be suitable and relevant to achieve the intended objectives.

When multiple ways exist to achieve an EU goal, the option causing the least burden should be chosen.

Two levels of judicial review. Marginal review gives more deference to the decisions of administrative bodies with wide discretion, while full review applies when the body has limited discretion or fundamental rights are involved.

The principle applies to all EU actions, ensuring that any limitations on fundamental rights are justified and necessary, and the burden imposed is proportionate to the objective sought.

A principle used to manage risks, especially in environmental and health matters, where scientific certainty is lacking but potential harm exists. It justifies taking protective measures even with incomplete information.

Applied in situations with scientific uncertainty. It is a 'shield' for regulators to take protective actions based on potential risks, balancing protection with economic considerations.

It involves a thorough risk assessment, including hazard identification, characterization, exposure appraisal, and risk characterization. This process must be based on sound scientific data and be transparent.

Measures taken based on the precautionary principle must be proportionate, non-discriminatory, and consistent. They should also balance societal risks and economic impacts, prioritizing public health.

The Pfizer case involved antibiotic additives in animal feed, highlighting the precautionary principle's use in managing potential health risks despite incomplete scientific certainty.