Legitimate expectations on the Dutch Administrative Law
Keywords: Netherlands / administrative / legal expectations
Summary: legitimate expectations on the Dutch administrative law, public law as a principle, from an historical perspective, is to protect the rights that have principles and the principle of continuity of the derivatives. Codification of the administrative law process, it was only partially into the culture The remaining case law is still being. legislative change, revocation of administrative decisions, policies, rules change, compliance with Guidelines, as well as the commitments made by the executive authorities to provide information, sign the contract and the court ruling, etc. have legitimate expectations may cause problems.
I. Introduction
Read a few of the Dutch administrative law English literature, I find the Netherlands on legitimate expectations (legitimate expectation of understanding and practice, as a magnificent wonderful, very unique, and some familiar with my past, the United Kingdom and the EC legitimate expectations are not very different. It led me to one of the main motivation for writing this article. I will take a combination of literature research and interviews with the method, [1] trying to understand and practice the Netherlands, a unique show in front of the Chinese scholars. But I not only remain in the sort described level, I will also address some of our confusion, in the comparison of moderate to do. my entire research work will be around the following issues:
(1 in the Dutch scholar JBJM ten Berge and RJGM Widdershoven the article, I first discovered the legitimate expectations in public law and private law theory of history and relationship, though it is unclear, made me very surprised, aroused my interest to pursue. So, how will the Dutch scholars, the answer it?
(2 and our current state of academic research, as in the Netherlands there are three functions are also similar principles - honesty, trust and protection of legitimate expectations, it seems tangled with each other, so that legislation and confusion at a loss theory. So the Netherlands is how scholars look at this issue? their knowledge may be able to give us some inspiration.
(3 Administrative Law to protect the legitimate expectations for the reasons explained, the Netherlands and scholars from the perspective of history, which I also read in English literature in the past are different. Their paper (card is really inspiring, but the same thing.
(4 Netherlands is also working to promote the codification of administrative law (codification of administrative law. However, specification building on the principle of legitimate expectations is walking in between the Code and case law, case law and even more bias, which is why ? This is a very attractive one of my problems.
(5 Netherlands legitimate expectations that the government can produce a rich and diverse patterns of behavior, even beyond the scope of the UK and European identity. In particular, in their view, legislation, court decisions, contracts and so there will be room for legitimate expectations principles apply This is very unique. So, what style we need to legitimate expectations it?
Second, not involved with the private law?
1, the surprise discovery
I read a lot of English literature, are not found in public law and private law on any legal theory the expected association. Or that I did not find any English literature confirmed that the legitimate expectations in administrative law was originally a product of private law, but was Yuanyong to Hang Zhengfa Shanglai. ��Դ�� even in the common law, by the Daixue (AV Dicey �Ĵ� under the influence of legal equality Xueshuo the United Kingdom, I did not find a similar China. In particular, the British judge Danning (Lord Denning, Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge blessing to the race (CF Forsyth's letter, vowed to declare: "The (legal is expected that this concept is from my own pop out of mind, not from any continent or any other place "(it came out of my own head and not from any continental or other source. [2] All of these signs make me come to a preliminary conclusion: the legitimate public law is expected to be generated independently, and private law unrelated to each other the What connection does not exist between.
However, the Dutch scholar JBJM ten Berge and RJGM Widdershoven say that, Constitutional and Administrative Law on the principle of legitimate expectations (the principle of legitimate expectations is likely originated selfish Law (private law. In private law for a long time, people believe that the implementation a legal act, and the decisive factor in determining its content (decisive factor, not only the will of the parties, but also by the behavior of the legitimate expectations. Similarly, the constitutional and administrative law, and we often use the theory to the set of Private Law to explain the principle of legitimate expectations. [3]
Although this text did not elaborate, but still shocking to me, it seems I have to amend my original point. Perhaps, the only judge of my British and Commonwealth countries affected, and in a sea across the European continent, the situation is more complicated. Lord Denning acknowledged in the European continent alone have generated a similar principle, that of the original ecosystem occurred at a time even earlier than Britain. in particular Germany, traditionally the Court has to be honest invoked the principle of credit up to the phenomenon of public law, public law and a government more interested in protecting the principles of trust, bond with the private connection is obvious. So, whether the Netherlands close to the German influence was the German?
2, further confirmation
I took the suspect to the Dutch public law scholars Tom Zwart, Nico Verheij confirmation. They clearly told me that the principle is a native of the Netherlands, there is no effect or successors by the German problem. Is a public law principle of legitimate expectations, and private non- involved, and only certain interpretation of the elements on the absorption of private law.
This is a very interesting phenomenon. Perhaps, the somewhat conflicting views among the two hiding something. Perhaps the legitimate expectations in public law and private law does have some historical connection, we can not categorically rule out the possibility , although clearly we can not sort out this kind of evolution. I'm not legal history scholars, the subject certainly can not cause me more curious to do the hard research.
By contrast, Tom Zwart, Nico Verheij practical approach more attractive to me. We can expect the legal principle of public law as a principle of direct targeting, which avoids a lot of research work, do not by the fetters of private law, and is to selectively learn the elements of private law, public law principle that is more conducive to self growth.
3, the different manifestations of public law
Say the least, even if we accept some kind of legitimate expectations and private law theory has implicated elements or history, we should be more concerned about is how it will be in public law the different manifestations of it?
Perhaps for the same psychological, Dutch scholar JBJM ten Berge and RJGM Widdershoven not simply stop at the speculation, but rather quickly move to the subject, they quickly discovered the principle of legitimate expectations in the area of the use of public and private law have different. They pointed out that in private law relations, personal commitment and on the principle of contract freedom. However, in public law, administrative authorities are not automatically (automatically enjoys a similar freedom. After all, the executive must be in the public interest, to follow the rules of public law to exercise power. This means that executive power is not always able to make a commitment to exercise, in addition, perhaps because of other commitments than the interests of legitimate expectations generated more important (overrule. [4]
This understanding is intriguing. In my interpretation of it, which contains two meanings: First, the executive can not be as casual as a private promise, it must have authority for and legal basis. Second, the executive in the future exercise of administrative power, is actually a commitment to transcend the past, it must be in accordance with its responsibilities and authority, independent and impartial exercise of discretion, to re-think and weigh whether to fulfill the original promise. Here, it is not always priority of public interests, but through the interests of the measure, to see how the exercise of administrative power in the end was more in line with the purpose authorized by law.
The first is no problem, but also better understanding, in line with the basic concept of administration by law and requirements. However, the second point seems to create the impression, signed with the executive, or follow the guidance and commitment to the executive is risk is unsafe. In fact, in my view, this group in vogue in the society is not surprising. Of course, we need to reduce the risk of mechanism, which is why we need to legitimate expectations of the place, It can increase the relative sense of security, for the system balance.
Adopt such a system design is actually behind the group mentality (collectivism rather than individualism, the idea first, is the group mentality (collectivism rather than individualism-based position. We can from the Dutch administrative law clearly smell the taste. For example, in determining whether the legislation can have a retroactive effect, they believe, if given retroactive effect obtained is greater than the personal interests of the public interest, it can be. I think that our concept and approach and the Netherlands the same.
Third, the principle of the three competing
In the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the administrative law discussion on the legitimate expectations only, more simple. While in Europe the situation is more complex than on the mainland, especially in Germany. From the relevant literature see, good faith is invoked to the field of administrative law, and the generation of trust protection principle, it seems that the practice originated in Germany. and as a member of the EC, the German law also legally bound to reach the expected term. The result is that three principles redundant, intertwined entangled.
Interestingly, in the Netherlands, will, too. The same phenomenon is to introduce an administrative law, JBJM ten Berge and RJGM Widdershoven in their papers into "legitimate expectations" (legitimate expectation, and JG Brouwer and AE Schilder has translated into a "trust protection principles "(the principle of confidence, Ren�� Seerden and Frits Stroink into a" good faith "(the principle of good faith. This phenomenon is at least tells us that there are three functions in the Netherlands close to competing with the principle that the principle of legitimate expectations of trust protection principle and the principle of good faith. [5]
This has led to my strong interest. Because, in our country, government research integrity has been intertwined with the three main lines, that is, according to their preferences and scholars advocating the three paths: First, the private law principle of good faith (the principle of good faith applies to the law came, [6] The second is mainly from the writings of scholars in Taiwan to understand, research and the introduction of Germany's trust protection principle (the principle of confidence, the current theory of the term and got the upper hand, [7] Third, popular in common law countries and the EC to invoke the principle of legitimate expectations. [8] due to their functional objectives are similar, invoked in the Code and the practice, they are undoubtedly the competition - and placed in the legislators, courts and administrative authority before the selection for the latter.
So, what is the relationship between these three? May be, in the European continent, people put the same thing in English translated into a different terminology? They are really the same, they can be used interchangeably?, Or that they s there are more subtle inter-relations? are different things? So, the difference here? perhaps because the lack of literature, we can not research these issues are clear. However, there is a problem that we can not bypass, we What choice should do it?
1, abandon the path of private law
In the Netherlands, I met several administrative law scholars are very sure that the principle of good faith is a private law principle, the principle of legitimate expectations is a public law principles. Then, has been marked private branded principle of good faith and in public law What significance does it may have? Nico Verheij pointed out that the Netherlands is almost not discussed whether to private law principle of good faith (the good faith principle invoked in the law up, in public law, in good faith but also ineffective. Of course, he also , the court may be used in the trial as a good faith interpretation of the reasons for decision.
I also hold similar views. In my view, be invoked directly from the private law principle of good faith up to the law up or share the principles of public law and private law, such research methods and approaches to a problem in itself. I am more inclined to think that public law legitimate expectations on just learned some elements of private law, not to invoke it, it has its own trajectory. My reasons are as follows:
First, no matter how we define "good faith" concept, only from Zi Mianshang to revealing a moral meaning. Once we cover this level is not conducive to maintaining public confidence in the goodwill of the administrative process, but also may increase the relief of difficulty. to recognize the executive staff there at the moral level of its problems, certainly need to have sufficient evidence.
Second, the public nature of the exercise of power determines the need for a special public law rules, can not easily, without identifying the introduction of private law and principles. Lord Hoffman in R. (Reprotech Ltd.) V. East Sussex County Council case The opinion has long reminded us that the trial can not be on the private law principle of estoppel (the private law doctrine of estoppel be invoked to the executive body, should apply its own rules of public law, targeted to consider how to adjust the executive authorities of such acts . He said: "Of course, private law estoppel and public law by the executive led to the concept of legitimate expectations have enjoyed a similar result in denial of these are the same abuse of power (profits. ... ... In my opinion, in this areas of private law public law has moved from supporting the concept of estoppel has learned the moral values of useful components, the time of its independence. "[9] I also sincerely that it does.
Third, to say the least, even if it can open up the boundaries between private and public law, this effort will put a lot of problems more complicated. Because the principle of good faith in the long-term private law practice has become a sophisticated theory of complex structures, and civil law Principles of docking was flawless. Once the basic principles to its operation to the not quite the same administrative interface, you must think how to remove, cut and fixed. This will become very complicated for the problem. In contrast, we could also the establishment of a public law principles, and then selectively learn the elements of private faith. This latter path is even more flexible, simple, crisp and clear. Public Private not always repeat, "yesterday's story." We need to face the problem of administrative law , straightforward manner to solve it.
Fourth, protection from the trust and good faith on the relationship between the cross-examination. Since the law has been invoked in good faith, why create another one, "trust protection," the term it? The other hand, is no different. Dr. Yan Bao Seoul, "the abstract principle of good faith by the specific characteristics need to be supplemented principles or norms, trust protection principle became the principle of good faith in the specific field of public law applicable to a lower position when the principle of interpretation." [10] Dr. Wang Guisong also given a similar explanation is the "general principle of good faith is too strong, full of moral tone, and in particular about the rule of law, administrative law, the more clarity and operability." [11] Therefore, the public law has developed a new terminology and theory. The implication seems to already replaced the principles of trust, following the principle of good faith in the role and function of public law. [12] They had to admit, trust often mixed protection and good faith apply. That being the case, for the purposes of public law, nearly eliminate the principle of good faith.
So, if I expect in a legal, trust and integrity protection of choice among the three, I will not hesitate to abandon the first principle of good faith to invoke the path of private law. Of course, I am against faith as a basic principle of administrative law, I do not entirely deny the faith in the value of public law. First, in the court's decision can have a choice to learn the value and number of factors. Secondly, in the relative norms of collaboration and coordination behavior, we can ask the relative You have integrity, must participate in civil activities, such as good faith to do so. For example, when applying for permit, shall not provide false information. because, regardless of the trust or the protection of legitimate expectations is the main point to point or administrative authorities to the core of the executive to regulate and the binding object, which is the basic mission of administrative law - the right to control administrative dictates. and we know that, to be able to complete an administrative activities, but also must have a relative participation and collaboration. counterpart's integrity is very important, but Good faith in private law is to point to both the original, so appropriate at this level can be borrowed.
2, the trust protection and the legitimate expectations
Next, we must address the protection and trust between the legitimate expectations. In the Netherlands, do not deny that these two principles generally belong to public law principles. But I was very puzzled as to why in the Netherlands, Germany will administrative functions at the same time milking the same way as the two principles?
Dr. Zhang Xingxiang Zeng Jiu Xinlaibaohu and legal Yu Qi De Shuyu Wentizuoguo Yifanjieshi, he said: "legitimate Yuqibaohu a Yuanzi �� German law the concept of German law Zai Shang Cheng Wei Vertrauensschutz, translated in French called 'protection de la confinace legitime ', the term was introduced to Britain in the beginning to be translated as' protection of legitimate reliance (legal protection of trust' to close to the German original meaning. However, in the English-speaking countries, protection of the interests of the other trust have pointed out, in order to prevent the words too literally, protection of legitimate expectation (the protection of legitimate expectations replaced 'protection of legitimate reliance' and is more common. "[13] That is, in his view, in Germany, protection and trust legitimate expectations is one thing, but when translated into English in different terms, thus easily lead us to understand the confusion.
So, this interpretation is applicable in the Netherlands? I think I am afraid that there are problems. First of all, from the specific system point of view, the trust of the German withdrawal of protection and administrative acts have a close relationship theory, and the Netherlands, not exactly. From areas of their legitimate expectations of view, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom'd very much alike. Second, Tom Zwart professor is a definite answer, the Netherlands, the local legal system is expected to generate. So, why the Dutch terminology confusion there? The number of letting I am a bit confused, hesitant.
In my opinion, if only attributed to the translation of the misunderstanding seems to hide something. Perhaps because of the two principles are from Germany, the United Kingdom origin, blend together the final yet. So, German law on the protection of how the origin of the trust , but also how to develop? whether the United Kingdom between the legitimate expectations of the blend, a blend of what appeared in it? it's legitimate expectations and the EC what relationship? face of this series of questioning, I have trying to protect from the writings on the trust to sort out a clue, especially from the German law on the protection of the development of trust among the sort out a context of evolution. but it is interesting that the trust protection principle in his discussion of development, the German law is most background, the above cross-mixed with the popular use of the legitimate expectations the UK and European literature, so we really can not see the jump in the face of it.
Since not figure to put aside, only to care about the difference between them. Interestingly, in the Netherlands, some scholars believe that the trust protection principle with little difference between the principle of legitimate expectations, but Professor Tom Zwart do not think they are the same , is one thing, but the reference to different perspectives, trust is relative against the government, and legitimate expectations of the Government in terms of the relative parties. He believes that this issue is pointless to argue, but should pay more attention to how well solve practical problems, the relative who is able to provide complete relief. In his view, as long as the problem has been properly resolved, then what is the use of a trust which is expected to explain the legitimate, nothing but a transformation of a substance consistent just different terminology. Perhaps, the argument merits and demerits of these principles, the introduction of what is proper, there is no practical significance. we should go straight to the study of Chinese context specific problems and the corresponding relief strategies and methods to distinguish from each other advantages and disadvantages.
Fourth, theoretical roots
So, why do we do to protect the legitimate expectations? For such a problem, Dutch scholar JBJM ten Berge and RJGM Widdershoven no value from a purely social point of view such demands described, [14] but the return to history, to explore the root of history (roots , and comes down to two important, has a long history and tradition of the theoretical principles: First, the principle of protection of the entitlement (the principle of the protection of acquired rights, the second is the principle of continuity (the principle of consistency. This perspective is quite novel.
1, the principle of protection of the rights that have
Administrative Law in the Netherlands, the protection of the principle that entitlement (the principle of the protection of acquired rights was first recognized by the court in October 31, 1935, a decision, the case involved the salaries of civil servants, including the city of Utrecht staff (the town clerk of the municipality of Utrecht wages. a law in March 1935 dropped the civil service wages, and the provision retroactive to April 1934. This means that civil servants should have received the previous year to pay back . This has led to dissatisfaction and civil litigation. Central Court of Appeal (the Central Appeals Court that the civil law is based on effective access to annual wage and can not retroactively change the past, the state (a retrospective change, so that civil servants unfavorable ( affect him adversely, the principle of protection of the rights that have allowed the government to exercise such powers. Because of this provision undermines the rights of civil servants that have violated the law, the principle of certainty, so the Court dismissed. [15]
Later, other administrative courts have invoked this principle and turning it into a more refined, clearer. For example, subsidies (subsidies issue, the State Council of the Judiciary (the Judicial Division of the State Council in the St. Bavo clear case for the following two points: First, once given a grant, in principle, to not be revoked. Second, if the grant has received a number of years, then, only in very exceptional circumstances can be revoked, but must have a transition period, but also to be compensated. This decision was later absorbed the principles of the provisions of the <<General Administrative Law>> the first 4:50 into sections (section 4:50 of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht, the General Administrative Law Act. [16]
2, the principle of continuity
Principle of continuity from the U.S. and British legal traditions. First in the food supply of arbitration (the Food Supply Arbitration Tribunal (Scheidsgerecht voor de Voedselvoorziening) some of the ruling invoked. These cases involve a large number of administrative discretion and administrative authority so that a degree of continuity discretion, predictability (predictability, developed a lot of discretionary policy specification rules (policy rules. arbitration that the formulation of policy rules is not a trifling matter, the executive can not break her promises, for the relative Because these policies have the expected rules, the executive should in principle be met, otherwise, the administrative decision will be revoked. [17]
That principle in many driven by the Administrative Court, case law has been greatly by the development of its meaning not only in principle, the executive relative to the legal obligation to meet expectations, and further expand into the executive has the statutory obligation to develop policies rules to regulate the exercise of administrative discretion. The reason why such a change will occur, mainly because of very broad discretion to some extent undermined the principle of legality (the principle of legality, which can promote the discretion of policy rules the consistency of the exercise, so as to realize the certainty of law (legal certainty. Therefore, the principle of continuity is natural to be a necessary concomitant principle of legality (a necessary concomitant, play a complementary role. [18]
Can be said that these two principles the support from their legitimate expectations, and laid on the protection of legitimate expectations in administrative law legitimacy. We can also think so, in the Netherlands, is the legitimate expectations of the two ancient principles of law in the Administrative Law Life goes on after its vitality into the administrative law, reintegration, forging into a new pattern of academic and theoretical terms, so that legitimate expectations more fully with the legitimacy of a solid foundation.
In fact, the root causes of the two theories, the flow of the more important is a basic principle of law, that is, the certainty of law principles. Not only JG Brouwer and AE Schilder, and Ren�� Seerden and Frits Stroink also recognize that law certainty principle and the principle of trust (the principle of confidence are closely related. [19] Therefore, there is no doubt that, fundamentally speaking, the principle of legitimate expectations is rooted in the certainty of law principles (the principle of legal certainty, at least closely relationship. This is the framework upon which stands a solid land.
In this regard, the Dutch scholar Nicolaï to do a more targeted deconstruction. He believes in the Constitution and Administrative Law, the Law of the uncertainty principle can be decomposed into three sub-principles: (a substantive principle of certainty of law (the principle of substantive legal certainty. The principle requires the executive to respect the rights of the relative who has received (acquired rights, and regulations have retroactive effect (retroactive effect of regulations and administrative decisions of the withdrawal have some limitations. (2 program of the Law certainty principle (the principle of procedural legal certainty. requires an administrative decision must be clear and unambiguous. (3 legitimate expectations principle. requiring the executive to meet the legitimate expectations as far as possible, in particular the commitments and policies for the executive authorities of the legitimate expectations generated rules. [20] This level of deconstruction of the principle of certainty to the law and protection of the principle of acquired rights, the principle of continuity and connection points between the legitimate expectations more clearly.
Once the demonstration process and return to this point, immediately to life, but also popular in the United Kingdom and the European Community with the butt up to say. The law is legal certainty is undoubtedly a very important expected demands of society, but also makes the protection of legitimate expectations eventual integration into the trend of the rule of law.
Five, standard construction
Under the influence in Germany, the Netherlands also try codification of administrative law - the development <<General Administrative Law>> (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, the General Administrative Law Act, and for many years, and perseverance to build a project this ambitious legislation. As field of administrative law and the problem is too large and complex, so, the Netherlands adopted a strategy of gradually building, 1 January 1994 completed the Code of the first and second part of the January 1, 1998 to complete the third part. Scholars estimated to take 20 years to complete this task. [21] So, let's interesting question is whether the principle of protection of legitimate expectations of the programs included in the code? advance to what extent?
Codified in this vigorous movement, the principle of legitimate expectations can not be completely aloof, unaffected .1997 after January 1, some aspects of the principle to the legislation were to be gradually absorbed, there are two points: first, "<General Administrative Law>> decision on the revocation of grant (subsidy decisions this particular type of administrative decision making rules. The second," <General Administrative Law>> also to the extent to which policy rules bound to the provisions of the executive.
However, we can only say, in part related to the legitimate expectations have been codified. As for the certainty of law principles (the principle pf legal certainty, or that the principle of trust (the principle of good faith, <<General Administrative Law> > (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, the General Administrative Law Act which is not specified. [22] In other words, the principle of legitimate expectations still remain in the majority among the Court's jurisprudence. Why is it so?
1, the quasi-official explanation
Professor Nico Verheij, this is because, first, in the drafting of the general administrative law does not specifically consider this principle. Second, the specific content of the principle, there are still many disputes. Third, difficult to define. Nico Verheij professor While the answer is very simple, but concise. because of his general administrative law in the Netherlands plays an important role in the development, so his views actually reflect the basic attitude of the Dutch government, is a quasi-official explanation.
2, the beauty of uncertainty
The Netherlands also has a very interesting point of view, even the mainstream though, is that the legitimate expectations if it is codified, then, for the violation of the provisions of this part of the case, you do not invoke the principle of legitimate expectations, and can be directly determined the offense. In other words, in their view, the legitimate expectations is mainly an unwritten legal principles, case law is only as fill to make up for lack of effect of statutory law. If there is statutory provision, and to no longer need to invoke it. [ 23] In other words, after the legitimate expectations were codified to discount the value of, at best, play only reason explanatory sentence, incidental reasons only, not a decision based on a direct basis or principal. [24]
The reason why the legal case law is expected to feel nostalgic for the carrier to accept defeat, to stop their legitimate expectations and the Code of grams of each other, this Shengbi dead, in fact, the Dutch scholars also revealed another interesting understanding is that only embedded in the case law among the legitimate expectations in order to maintain the uncertainty, not certainty its own beauty, to imprison codification should not be used. They have never been fully codified into pondering the beauty of uncertainty. Why is this so?
In the Netherlands, people are keenly aware that in the protection of legitimate expectations, has been intertwined with two conflicting interest, one is to maintain law and continuity of certainty (certainty and constancy, the other is to adapt to rapidly changing society. Among scholars in the Netherlands, has been with two different, even diametrically opposed to the voice of one is the "important function of law is to have legitimate expectations by as much as possible to maintain the uncertainty." Another is the "law can not be built on trust and is expected to last, no matter how reasonable those expectations and just. "[25] they are in fact the reality of these conflicts should be combined with the echo.
In this contradictory movement, to share, should be protected and how to protect the legitimate expectations of the problem. So, how to solve this problem? Dutch administrative law interpreted at this point dripping fun, we have clearly demonstrated to the principle of legitimate expectations uncertainty and the uncertainty generated by the subtlety.
First of all, in the Netherlands, there is a very interesting concept, they protect the legitimate expectations of the generation and isolation from, respectively, China. In the case acknowledged the existence of legitimate expectations does not mean it will be protected by law. Whether protection and how to protect, you need to judge the specific trade-offs (Weighing of interests. fragmented purpose is to resolve these contradictions enough space for maneuvers.
Second, the methodology, they hope to resolve these contradictions main interest lies in the specific case being measured. In the process of considering the interests of ease as much as possible, to eliminate the contradictions. Dutch Administrative Court relies also "resorted to demolition move "type of cases considered, that is, in specific cases of conflict with each other to balance the various interests. it is necessary to consider the interests of their clients, but also consider the public interest, but also consider the interests of a third party. In the meantime, it is natural to rub into the proportion of thought, requiring the executive to pursue the objectives and the relative interests of people so affected by the proportion between the need to, but definitely not out of proportion. The first delivery to the executive judge, but judges have the final right to speak (the court having the final say, play a decisive role.
The idea is that the overall methodology and the Netherlands, the same strain of administrative law. Dutch legislation and case law that the management is mainly to balance the various interests. This duty even with the "Prohibition of unreasonable" (prohibition of unreasonableness of the same structure. Later, species concept was incorporated into the <<General Administrative Law>> in the achievements of an important principle - the principle measure of interest (balance of interests. This principle is the principle of good administration (the principle of proper administration, the principle of fair administration of One of the basic content of the next. [26]
Thus, the existence of legitimate expectations of those cases, it seems so difficult to predict the final outcome of the trial court. Because you can not correctly predicted the extent to which the judge in the end will be considered legitimate expectations, the judge how the weights. The interests of the trade-off is no precise mathematical formula. Therefore, the Dutch scholar JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven even slightly dig, said: "Perhaps a bit exaggerated, based on the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty of the principles upon which the request can be met is very uncertain, with little more uncertain than it was. "[27]
Consideration of the case seemed to imply that the interests of protection of legitimate expectations is the misty uncertain. But it is not. After years of court rulings, in fact, has formed a number of criteria (criteria. not allow consideration of these standards even though the process of completely standardized (standardise, but has been able to better control and regulate the process of. So, in the Netherlands, among the current case law in the protection of the principle of legitimate expectations does not in practice, on how far off the mark, will not make people completely uncertain.
More importantly, the Constitutional and Administrative Law in the Netherlands, but willing to accept such uncertainty, they believe that the interests of the process of weighing the fine (subtle process must also be done among the best on the case, it can be "tailored" (tailor made type of decision, the case in order to achieve justice. This process is not suitable for being placed in a rigid law to standardize immobilized. [28]
Therefore, the codification movement in the Netherlands refused to legitimate expectations of the full code, more popular illicit Code of legitimate expectations. This is by far still the mainstream view. Of course, this view has also been criticism of some scholars, because it can not be explain why the measure of interest is also the principle of proportionality has been codified, and even the interests of code into the measure itself is a fundamental principle? [29]
3 Summary
Overall, in the Netherlands, the "judge-made law" (judge-made law is still no fundamental change in the pattern. Legitimate expectations principle contained in the main case law (case law in the. As a basic principle, it has not been provided to the <<general Administrative Law>> (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, the General Administrative Law Act 1994 into. legitimate expectations principle, to a large extent, is still an unwritten principle of law (an unwritten principle of law.
Can be said that the scholars do not tend to Code of the Netherlands, and full of contradictory reasons, not the foundation of our ideas, a clear example of this is, we control for administrative discretion is also walk in between the rigid norms and , which also does not exclude law norms, do not deny that into the culture, the trend of codification. We have long accepted the fact, that is, the norms established by the Act to exercise the power of the marginal can be very clear, it can be Yingyingchuochuo the . Then, during the stretching of course as a case of justice, considering the interests of discretion and leave enough space, while ensuring these activities are basically in line with the requirements of the rule of law doctrine.
Sixth, several cases
In the Netherlands, legislative change, revocation of administrative decisions, policies, rules (policy rules of the change of Guidelines (guidelines for compliance, as well as the commitments made by the executive authorities (promises, the information provided (information, sign the contract and the court's ruling (court judgments�ȵ�,����������Ϸ�Ԥ������,�Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ���ԭ����������������ж������õĿ���.
������Ұ��Ȼ�dz����,Ҳ��Ӣ����ŷ���������൱�IJ�ͬ.��Щ�������������о��������漰����,����,��������Լ�ͷ�Ժ�þ��ϵĺϷ�Ԥ��,����,���ڽ���ʱ��������һ��.
1�� ����
��ʵ,����,�ں���,�Ϸ�Ԥ������ע�����������Ǻܹ㷺,��Ҫ�������йز�˰�����������,����˰��(tax law����ᱣ�Ϸ�(social security law�Լ��빫��Ա���ɵ�λ�йصķ�(law relating to legal status of civil servants.��������������������Ĺ�ע,��Ҫ��һЩ�����ݼ�Ч����������Ч������,����,������������ѧ��ע��ʱ��Ĺ涨,��ᾭ�÷��ɵ��������ҵ��ʵ�в�����(catch quotas�����Ĺ涨.
(1Ϊ�ι�ע?
����֮���Ի��ע�����ϵĺϷ�Ԥ������,����Ϊ������Ϊ,���ɾ��ǹ�������˷��ɵ�λ���Ե�������Ϣ,������ܹ���������,����˻���Ϊ����������Ϣ�������Ϸ�Ԥ��.�����Ķ�Ȼ�ı�,���߾����ݼ����ĸı䶼������Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ�������.[30]
(2��������
��������̸�Ϸ�Ԥ��,�����뷨�ɵ��ݼ�Ч���й�.�ں���,���ǰѷ�����Ч��Ϊ��������:һ�����ݼ���Ч����(retroactive effect,�����ɶ䲼֮ǰ��������ʵҲ����,Ҳ��"����Ч��"(immediate effect,���ǰ뼴����Ч(semi-immediate effect,ֻ����Ч֮��ķ��ɹ�ϵ��������Ч��,��Ϊ"respecting effect",�����ӳ���Ч,��������Ч֮���ij��ʱ�����Ч��,��Ϊ"delayed effect".[31]
�Ϸ�Ԥ�ڿ��ܴ���������������֮��:(1���úϷ�Ԥ��ԭ����Ϊ��������,�����������ݼ���Ч���ķ��ɵľ���,(2������Ա����Ϸ�Ԥ��Ϊ��,Ҫ��������ȡ��������Ч��ʽ,Ҳ����"�뼴����Ч"����"�ӳ���Ч".[32]
(3��ս·��
�ں���,�ԺϷ�Ԥ��ԭ������ս����,�����������͵IJ�ͬ��������ͬ.�������dz�����ɫ�ĵط�.
�ں���,�������Էֳ�����:һ�����������(Acts of Parliament,��������������Ṳͬ�ƶ���(Acts of Parliament are established by the government and parliament (the States General) together,�Ǽ��ߺ�����ɫ��һ��������̬.��һ�����������о������Ĺ���(generally binding regulations,Ҳ��"��������"(subordinate legislation,�����л�ʡ�����ƶ�������(bye-laws of municipal or provincial authorities,�����������Ĺ���(regulations issued by the government or a minister.
������������������������Ϸ���(a special democratic legitimacy.��������ɫ��,Ҳֻ������Լ������ʺ�ȥ��������Ʒ�ĺ�����.����,�����ܷ���120���涨:"��Ժ��Ȩ�����������ĺ�����",Ҳ����˵,������������������Լ��γɵķ�ʽ,��Ժԭ���϶�����ָ�ֻ���.������߷�Ժ�ӶԵ�120������ʷ�������ƶ�,�����涨Ҳ�����ų��˷�Ժ���ݷ��Ļ���ԭ��,�����Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ���ԭ��������Ŀ�����.���,����������Ƿ���ϺϷ�Ԥ�ڱ���ԭ������������,��Ҫ������Ȩ�����Ƿ�ԺȾָ.������������Ƿ�������ݼ���������,��������������ڲ������������������.[33]����,"��г��"����(Harmonisation Act case����һ��.[34]
���ڴ�������,��Ժ��Ȩ���.�ں���,������鲻�dz����Ե�,����˲���ֱ��Ҫ��Ժ�о�����һ����������.��������Ǹ��������,Ҳ����˵,����˿��Բ�ȡ�������ַ�ʽ֮һ:
һ�ַ�ʽ��,���һ���ض��ľ���������Ϊ��������,ͬʱҪ��������Ժ(administrative courts�����Ըþ���������Ϊ(an individual decision�����ݡ�Ҳ���Ǵ����������кϷ�������.����,��Ժ�����ֻ�Ǽ�����(indirect review,��Ժ�����йش������������о�����,������Ч��ֻ���������ϵ�����(inter partes.��Ȼ,��ʵ��,��Ժ�����п��Բ�������һ����ЧӦ,��Ϊ������Ժ����Ҳ������ư�������ͬ�����о�.
��һ�ַ�ʽ��,�����·�Ժ(civil courts�����Ȩ���⳥Ҫ��,Ҫ��Ժ�����������ĺϷ���.��Ժ�������������һЩ�о�:(1�Դ��������Ƿ��о����������ж�,���������,(2��ִͣ���й�����,(3��ֹ�������ؼ���ִ��Υ���Ĵ�������,(4���⳥�ϲ�ȡ�ϸ�����(strict liability,ֻҪ�������صľ��������ݵĹ涨��Υ����,��ô,ԭ���Ͼ�֤�����������ε�(proof of its culpability.[35]
(4��������
�ں���,��������Ǩ�еĺϷ�Ԥ����α�����?���е�һЩ�����Ƚ�����,��������Ҳ��δ�γ������������ϵ,����,���ǻ��ǿ��Դ���ɢ���������ж�����������:[36]
����,�й��̷������������ķ��ɹ涨���Խ�ֹ�жԵ����˲������ݼ���,����,��Υ���Ϸ�Ԥ��ԭ��."�����ݼ�����ԭ��"��������ʵ�ó����,����˵ĺϷ�Ԥ��Ҳ���ϵü�ʵ����.
���,�θ��������������,ԭ���ϲ������ݼ���,ֻ���ڼ��������������,������ܹ�Ԥ���������仯,�ſ��Թ涨���ݼ����Ĺ淶.��������,��Щ����Ƚ���ɢ,����,�ɵ�˰����ͨ��ʱ����ȷ��ֻ�����е�(of a provisional nature,�·���˿����ݼ�����.�������Ԥ���ݼ�Ч��(the retroactive effect is not foreseeable,ԭ���Ͼʹ����źϷ�Ԥ��.
���,����ᱣ�Ϸ�����,��������ݾɷ��Ѿ������ij������,��������������йط��ɶ�������˲���,���Ƿ�Υ������˵ĺϷ�Ԥ��?�ɷ����úϷ�Ԥ����Ϊ����������?Ŀǰ,���������������̶��ġ��ձ����õı�(firm and generally applicable criteria,����Ϊ�������������,���¼�����Ϊ�ؼ�:��һ,�����Ԥ�ڵ���ʵ����(reality content�ж��.Ҳ����˵,һ����,�����˶���ᱣ��Ȩ���кϷ�Ԥ��,��һ����,��ᾭ���龳���ڲ��ϱ�Ǩ,��Ҫ������������,��ô,�����˵�Ȩ���Ƿ���Բ���������ǨӰ����?һ�����,����Ԥ���������ʱ��Խ��,Ҳ��Խ�����ܾ�����ʵ������,Ҳ��Խ����.���Ԥ��ֻ�ǹ���һ�������ڵ�֧������,��ô,����ȡ"�뼴����Ч"�ľ�����Խ�п�����Υ���Ϸ�Ԥ�ڶ�Υ��.�ڶ�,�Ƿ��г��������������.���Ҫ���DZ�Ҫ�Ժͷ��ϱ���,Ҫ���㹻�Ĺ�����������.����,�Ƿ��������ķ�ʽ�������µ�������Ӱ��,����,��ȡ�����Լƻ�(transitional scheme,�����µĹ涨��һ��ʱ����ִ��.[37] ת���� ��������������� http://www.hi138.com 2�� ��������
����������Ȼ������Ϊ�ܶ��ԭ���������(withdrawal���߸ı�(modification,���е����ηdz�����.<<һ��������>>û�жԴ������ձ��Թ涨,����Բ�����(subsidy�ij������������˹涨.
�ڳ������߸ı���������ʱ,Ҳ�п��ܳ��ֶԵ����˺Ϸ�Ԥ�ڵı�������.����,����dz���ϸ�������С�ĵط�������(�ı������������.��Щ����(�ı��Dz�������Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ�����,����,���ݽ�����(the Housing Act���Ž������֮��һ��ʱ����,�������û��ʵʩ������Ϊ,������;ͣ���ܳ�ʱ��,�������ؾͿ��Գ������.����,��Щȴ��.����,�������������ֳ�"����"(grant��"ȷ��"(fix������ʵʩ,�ڸ���(grant�γ������߱������,�ͱ���ȷ��(fix��Ҫ����Щ,��Ϊ,���������Ľ���Խ��ȷ��(definitive,����ȷ����ԭ���Խ������������������������.[38]
����һ������ľ���(Errors made,�ƺ���Ȼ�����ɳ���֮.����,������������ȴ���˸�Ϊϸ�µĿ���.�Ƿ���Գ���(�ı�һ���д������������,��������ʮ����Ҫ:[39]
(1�Ƿ�ϱ���.���������еĴ���������ص��������������ij̶�,����˵,�����������ص���֪Ϥ�������,���������������������.
(2˭�Ĵ���.���������Ĵ������������ص��µ�,���ǵ�������ɵ�.�������������ص��µ�,��Ժ��Ȩ���Ƿ���ʱ���Ϊ����.
(3������ϵ���Ƿ�֪�����ִ���.����,����ԱͻȻ�յ�һ��ʹ���(a sudden, excessively large payment of salary,����Ӧ֪�����ʷ�����,��������Ҳ��Ȼ���������ջش����Ĺ���.
(4����Ƿ�����.����,�Խ���������ʾ���������֮��,�ҵ������Ѿ���ʼʵʩ����,ԭ���ϲ��ó������.
(5������ʱ��.������ʱ����Ϊ�ؼ�,һ�����,�����ܳ�ʱ��֮��,�������زŷ��������������д����Ŵ���(error,��ʱ�������ؾ��п��ܻ�ɥʧ�䳷����Ȩ��(forfeits its right of withdrawal.
3�� ���߹���
�ں���,���߹���(Policy rules����������Ϊ�˱�������Ȩ����ʹ���ȶ�����һ����,�������Ȩ��Ӧ�������ʹ,�ƶ����ڲ��淶.����ʮ����,�����������������Ļ��б��Խ��Խ��Ҫ.[40]
�������߹����Ǿ��о������Ĺ���(binding regulations,����ȴ���Ծ����������ر�����������صĹ�����Ա������ί����ʹ�ض�Ȩ�������������Լ����ɹ涨�Ŀ����ܵ�������������,���Ӱ������˵����о�ֹ,�Ӷ�������ʵ�ַ���ȷ����.������߷�Ժ������һ���漰��������ָ��(the Administrative Fines Guidelines�İ�����ָ��,��Ȼ���߹����Ǿ���һ��������Ĺ���,����,����������ز�ȡ�˸ù���,����֮����,��ô,��������"��"��һ����.[41]
��Ȼ,���־���������Ե�,���Ǿ��Ե�.����<<һ��������>>(Article 4:84�涨,"��������Ӧ���������߹�������,����������������,���߹����һ�����߶��������ϵ��(interested parties�����Ľ��,������Ŀ��(the purposes of the policy rule���,���ɱ���."Ҳ����˵,������������,��������Ҳ��ƫ������(depart from policy������.
����˻���Ϊ���߹��������ǿ�ҵ�Ԥ��,����Ԥ��ҲӦ���ܵ�����.���Ϸ�Ԥ���ܵ���Ժ����ʱ,���߹���ľ������������ڲ����ĵĺϷ�Ԥ��ԭ���ƽ��ԭ��.�������:
(1һ����˵,��������Ӧ����������Ԥ��,��������������ϵ�˵��������Ϊ���߹����ִ�ж��ܵ����ص�����.
(2ԭ���Ͻ�,�뷨�ɵִ������߹�������Ч��.����,���ض�������,������漰���������뵱����֮��ķ��ɹ�ϵ,�����ڵ����˵���������,�������߹���Υ������,���Ϸ�Ԥ��ԭ���ƽ��ԭ��Ҳ����Ҫ�����������������߹���.[42]
(3������������ijһ����ָ��ʱ,�����ܳ������ϵ�(unexpectedly�ı䷽��(shift direction,�������������������Ե���(demonstrable damage.��Ҫ��ȡ���������ߡ����ȹ�ͨ��������.[43]
(4�����ȶ���ʵ��(an established administrative practice,Ҳ���γ�һ������.������������Ϊ������ʽ��������߹���,�������ĵķ�ʽ���ⷢ��,��Ҳ���о�����.���̶ֹ�ʵ���ǽ�����һϵ�еİ��������ϵ�,Ҳ�ܹ�����Ӧ�������ĺϷ�Ԥ��.
4�� ָ����Ҫ
ָ����Ҫ(Guidelines�Ȳ��Ƿ��ɹ���,Ҳ�������߹���.����ѧ��Bröring�����綨Ϊ"������Ȩ����,����ʹ������Ϊ������һ�����".[44] �������ר�һ���(expert organisations,����,���������뻷�����������о���(the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection���ڴ������ֲ�(brochures���Ƽ�������,���������ز���.[45]
�ӷ����Ͻ�,ָ����Ҫ����������û�о�����.����,������Щ��Ҫ������֮����,Ҳ��������˲���һ��Ԥ��.�����������û������ijһָ����Ҫ,��Ժ��Ҫ����˵������.����,ָ����ҪҲ�;�����ij�ֱȽ����ġ���ʵ�ϵľ�����(binding force.[46]
5�� ��ŵ����Ϣ
�������صij�ŵ(promise,���߶��ⷢ������Ϣ(information,�����ܲ����Ϸ�Ԥ��.��Ȼ,�ڳ̶����в��.������߷�Ժ��1979��9��26�յ�һ���о���ָ��,��ŵ(promise����Ϣ(information�������ײ����Ϸ�Ԥ��.�ð�����Ľ�����,һ��˰���Ա�ڵ绰�������˴��ݵĵ�������һ������ij�ŵ(promise,����һ���������Ϣ(information?��߷�Ժ��Ϊ,���ֻ����Ϣ(information,��ʹ������֤ʵ�Ǵ����,��ô����ԭ��������˰�˳е�.����,���������������ṩ��Ϣ��ְ��.��Ȼ,���ض�������,���������Υ��,������˰��Ҳ�����Ϣ��������һЩ�,��������Ԥ�ڽ�ʹ��������,��ô,˰����ؾ͵��ܵ�����.����,����dz�ŵ(promise�Ļ�,˰�����ԭ���Ͼ͵��ܵ�����,������˰���ṩ����Ϣ����ȷ,���ߴ���������Υ������֮��.[47]
��ʵ����,��ŵ�����������صij�Ա���߹���Ա������,��ô�ܲ����Ϸ�Ԥ����?������Ժ��Ϊ,����,Ӧ�����ֳ�ŵ���Թ����ʸ�(an official capacity����˽���ʸ�(a private capacity������,����,���������ʱ�����ij�ŵ,��Ȼ�����ڰ칫���������ij�ŵ�м�ֵ.���,Ҫ����ŵ�Ƿ���ί��Ȩ��(mandate��Χ,���������Ȩ��Χ�������ij�ŵ,��������Ҫ�ܾ���.��Ȩ��֮�������ij�ŵ,�Ƿ�����������о�����,��Ҫ�Ӿ������ζ���.����,ij������ij��Ա�ṩ����Ϣ,����Ͷ��,��Ԥ�ڻ������,��ȴ���,���Ҫ�����������⳥.������ù�Աδ����Ȩ.��Ժ�о������������ذ���.[48]
6�� ��Լ
�ں���,��������ǩ������Լ��Ϊ��ͳ��Լ(patrimonial contract��Ȩ����Լ(public power contract����.[49] ��Ȼ,Ҳ������һ�ֻ����Լ(mixed contracts,�Ǵ�ͳ��Լ��Ȩ����Լ�Ľ����.[50] ���ǹ�ע����Ҫ�ǹ�Ȩ����Լ.
��Ȩ����Լǩ��֮��,���ڱ˴�֮���γ�Ȩ�������ϵ.���պ�������ʶ,���ǻ�����Ϸ�Ԥ�ڵ�.��ô,����Ԥ���Ƿ��ܹ�Լ����������,��ʹ�����������Լ������?���Dz�����Ȼ.����������Ϊ,�������������й�Ȩ����Լ��,�ڿ����Ƿ���Ҫ��ʹ��Ȩ��ʱ,�������������ؿ��Ǹ�������,��������������,������Ҫ������ǰǩ���Ĺ�Ȩ����ԼΪ���ɲ��������������濼��.
����ѧ��JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven��������������ʱ˵��һ�俴��Ī�������ʵ������Ѱζ�Ļ�,����˵:"������Լһ�������˵��˲�����Լ����"(A person cannot be bound by a contract to which he is not a party.[51] �����������,��ʵ������˵,�������ؾ����������й�Ȩ����Լ,��ȴ�Dz�����Լ����Լ����˼������ʹ����Ȩ��.�����Լ֮��,ȴҪ��������Լ֮��.��Ȼ,������ǵĽ���Dz�����,(��Ȼ�ǺϷ��IJ�����,��Ӧ�⳥�����˵���ʧ.
7�� ��Ժ�þ�
�����ں�������û����ѭ����ԭ��(doctrine of stare decisis,����,�����˲����ܴ���ǰ���о��л�úϷ�Ԥ��.����,���������,�Ϸ�Ԥ��ԭ����˾���ϵ����岻��.����,������������ȴ��һ���ܶ��ص�˾��ָ����Ҫ(judicial guidelines,�������п��ܴ�������һ��Ԥ��.
����˾��ָ����Ҫ�ı�����,����������Ժ�����Ϸ�(the procedural law of the administrative courts���൱����ʽ(fairly informal��,�������кܴ�����ɲ���Ȩ.����,��Щ����,��Ժ��ʼͨ��˾��ָ����Ҫ(judicial guidelines���淶,���ƽ�����ͳһ��(legal uniformity�ͷ���ȷ����(legal certainty.[52]
˾��ָ����Ҫ�����˷��ɽ��ע��,����Ҫ��Ժ������Щ��Ҫ.��Щ��ҪҲ�����ؾ��������������ص����߹���(policy rules��������.��߷�Ժ��һ���о���ָ��,��Щ�涨�������������ߵĸ�Ҫ(the guidelines concerning the policy on the cause list,��������<<˾����>>(the Judiciary Act��99��(section 99�涨��"��"�ķ���.[53] ���,�����˿��Դ��ѹ�����˾��ָ����Ҫ�л�úϷ�Ԥ��.��Ȼ,��һЩ����������,��ԺҲ�п��ܲ���˾��ָ����Ҫ�þ�,����,��Ժ�����г�ֵ�����,����ר�����.
8����Ҫ������
����,����JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven����������û�а��ձ�����ʽ�������������,����,������Ȼ�ܹ������ط���,������Ӣ��һ��,�ԺϷ�Ԥ��Ҳ�����˳����ԡ�ʵ���Ժ��⳥�Եı���,����,ʵ���Ա�����ͨ��������Ȩ����ʹ�Ĵ����ġ���ϸ���Լ���Թ涨�����ֵ�.�ܶ��������ǻ�ϲ�����������ʽ.
���,�Ҳ����ϡ�Ҳ�������������龳֮�µ�ȷ������Ϸ�Ԥ������,����,��ͬ����������ֵ�����,[54] �Ҿ���,������������������������Լ�ͷ�Ժ�þ����龳�·���������,�Ѿ�ͨ�����е��ƶȵõ��˺ܺõĽ��,����������Ϸ�Ԥ�ڵı���.����,����Щ�龳��̸�ۺϷ�Ԥ��,���ֵֻ������Ϊ���еı�������һ�����ɶ���.����,��������˵��ɱ���ͬʱ,ȴ�ֲ�����Ӧ����ȼõ�����.�ȼ�Ч����Ȼ����ԭ״.��ʹ�����స�����Ƿ���Ҫ�ἰ�Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ���ƺ����п���.
�ߡ� ������
�Ժ����������ϵĺϷ�Ԥ���ƶ�����һ������֮��,�е�����Щ��ɫ,����Ȼû��ƫ������������ŷ��½�ĺϷ�Ԥ������.��Ϊ�����ṩ��һЩ�µ��ӽǡ�һЩ�µĹ۵��һЩ�µ�����.�������Ҹ���Ȥ������������:
��һ,���ѺϷ�Ԥ�ڷŵ�����ȷ��������ᷢչ�ı䶯��֮��ȥ�۲�Ͱ���,ͨ����������ļ���,���Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ������������������쾡��.��Ȼ,������������Ҫ��˾���ĸ߶�����,��Ҫ���ٸ߳��ļ���.�������˲���������,û�ио�����,���������һ�ӭ����̹Ȼ�������ɴ˴����IJ�ȷ����.��һ��dz��ʼ�,Ҳֵ��������˼.
�ڶ�,�Ա����Ϸ�Ԥ�ڵ����������ִ������˵��ͬʱ,����,���ǻ����ԴӴ�ͳ�ϵ�һЩ����ԭ����ʵ����ȥѰ���������Ի���.����,������ͳ�ϵı����ȵ�Ȩ��ԭ���������ԭ��,Ӣ������������ͨ��������ʷ�ϵĽ�ֹ����(estoppelԭ��.
Notes:
[1]������Tom Zwart��Nico Verheij�Ĺ۵�,�������Ҷ����ǵķ�̸.�ڴ���л.
[2]Cf. CF Forsyth, "The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations"(1988) Cambridge Law Journal 241.
[3]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, The principle of legitimate expectations in Dutch constitutional and administrative law, in Netherlands reports to the fifteenth international congress of comparative law (EH Hondius ed., 1998), p.425.
[4]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.425.
[5]��Ҫ˵������,�ڱ������ò�ͬ����ѧ�ߵĹ۵�ʱ,Ϊ����ʵ��ԭ��,���ɱ���ػ���������������サ����ֵ�����.
[6]��Ҫ����,�μ�,�ֶ���:<<��������ʵ����ԭ���о�>>(��ʿѧλ����,�й�������ѧ2005����,����:<<��ʵ����ԭ�����������ϵľ������á����Թ���Աְҵ���ء������ݼ���������ǿ��������Ϊ��Ϊ��>>(˶ʿѧλ����,�й�������ѧ2003����,����:"���������ϵij�ʵ����ԭ��",����<<�й���ѧ>>2004���1��,�ȵ�.
[7]��Ҫ����,�μ�,������:<<��������������>>,ɽ�����������2007���,��ݷ����:<<���������о�>>,������ѧ������2007���,Ī�ڴ� �ֺ賬:"�۵����������ϵ���������ԭ��",����<<�����о�>>2004���5��,��ѧ��:"�������е���������ԭ���о�",����<<��ѧ>>2002���5��,�ȵ�.
[8]��Ҫ����,�μ�,������:"�������ϺϷ�Ԥ��֮����",����<<�й�����ѧ>>2003���3��,������:<<�������Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ���ԭ���о�>>,������ѧ������2006���,�º�Ƽ:"�۶���������˺Ϸ�Ԥ�������ľȼ�",����<<�����뷨��>>2009���6��,�ȵ�.
[9]Cf. Daphne Barak-Erez, "The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations and the Distinction between the Reliance and Expectation Interests" (2005) 11 European Public Law 585.
[10]�μ�,�ֶ���:<<��������ʵ����ԭ���о�>>,����Ժ������2008���,��177ҳ,��179��181ҳ.
[11]�μ�,������:<<��������������>>,ɽ�����������2007���,��19��20ҳ.
[12]������˼����,������Ȼ�϶��˳�ʵ��������������֮��IJ���.�ֶ�����ʿΪ�˸�����ԭ��Ѱ�����������ϵ����������Ҫ��,��������֤�˳�ʵ���ñ������������õķ�ΧҪ��.����֮���ǰ����뱻������ϵ,���ǵ�ͬ��ϵ(�μ�,�ֶ���:<<��������ʵ����ԭ���о�>>,����Ժ������2008���,��179��181ҳ.Ȼ��,���ҿ���,�ֶ���������֤��˵��������ƶ��,���ٲ���˵����.����,����Ϊ,����ԭ�������ص�"������ϡ�������á���ƽ����"�ȶ��ֹ淶Ҫ��,Ϊ����������ȱ��,�����ҿ���,��Щ�淶Ҫ��ʵ����Ҳ���̺�����������֮�л���ʵʩ��Ч��֮��.����,�����㲻�ò���������Դ�,һ�����ֶ�����ʿ�����"���һ���Ĺ�����Ϊ�����������֮����ڲ����ɹ�ϵ��Ҳ���ڳ���ԭ��Ĺ淶����"(�μ�,�ֶ���:<<��������ʵ����ԭ���о�>>,����Ժ������2008���,��177ҳ,����һ���������ɲ�ʿ�����"��������Ϊ�������������еķ���Ҫ����ֵ�,�����������������������̷������ʱ�����"(�μ�,������:<<��������������>>,ɽ�����������2007���,��39ҳ.�ҳ���,�����������е�����,���ҵĹ۵��γ�һ�������,����ƾ�������㻹������ȷ����ʵ������Ϊ����������ԭ��ĵ�λ,�������Ե߸��ҵĹ۵�.��ϸ��ĥ����,��������������Ҫͻ�����������̱��֮ʱ,�������������ƶ���ЧӦȴ���Է�������������֮��,��ʹ�������ز��ò�����Դ�.����������������Ӧ����ʵ������Ϊ��ʽ,���ò�ȡ��ٷ���,��������������Ҫ��.������˵ij���Ҫ��,�Լ�����������֮��ij���Ҫ��,����Ҳ�����ڿ����������̸.��֮,���ǿ��ѳ�ʵ������Ϊһ��ע��,���߲��͵�����,��û�б�Ҫ��Ϊһ������������ԭ��.
[13]�μ�,������:<<�������Ϸ�Ԥ�ڱ���ԭ���о�>>,������ѧ������2007���,��8ҳ.
[14]�ⷽ�������,�μ�,������:"�������ϺϷ�Ԥ��֮����",����<<�й�����ѧ>>2003���3��.
[15]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.425��426.
[16]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.440��441.
[17]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.426��427.
[18]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.427. �������ۼ�����ʵ��,�������ҵ����п�.�����ںܶೡ�ϱ��������Ĺ۵�,���ǵ�ǰ�ҹ����������������Ӧ����"����֮��".����������������ʵ����������Ϊ�ҵĹ۵��һ����ע.�μ�,������:"�����ڹ淶�뽩��֮�䡪���Խ�����������ʵ����˼��",����<<�廪��ѧ>>2008���3��,�Լ�������:<<�������ɲ�����>>(�ڶ���,�й�������ѧ������2009���,��287��292ҳ,��330��331ҳ.
[19]Cf. JG Brouwer & AE Schilder, A survey of Dutch administrative law, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, 1998, p.45. and Cf. Ren�� Seerden (ed.), Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States, Oxford. Intersentia Antwerpen,2007,p.180.
[20]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.424.
[21]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & AJ Bok, Codification of administrative law in the Netherlands, Utrecht, 1998, p.1.
[22]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & AJ Bok, op. Cit., p.22.
[23]Cf. Ren�� Seerden (ed.), op. Cit.,p.180.
[24]Walter JellinekҲ˵�����ƵĻ�.����Ϊ,����Է�����������Ϊ����������ʱ,�������ó�ʵ���õ����.�μ�,����ģ����:<<������֮һ�㷨��ԭ��>>(��,�������1997���,��201ҳ.
[25]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.421.
[26]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & AJ Bok, op. Cit., pp.20-21.
[27]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.452.
[28]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.422,452.
[29]������Utrecht University��ѧԺTom���ڷ����˵Ľ�̸��,���Ƕ����������۵�ͳ�����̬��.�����Nicole��һ��������Ա,����Ϊû�з��仯����Ҫԭ��������.
[30]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.428.
[31]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.431.
[32]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.432.
[33]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.428��429.
[34]�ڸð���,�䲼��һ������,����г��(Harmonisation Act,�涨��ѧѧ��ע������������,�Ҹù涨��ij��ѧ�������ݼ�Ч��,��߷�Ժ������Ϊ��Υ���˺Ϸ�Ԥ��ԭ��,��Ҳ��Ȩ�о������ø÷�.Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.429.
[35]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.429��431,345-346.
[36]�����ս����Ե¹���֪ʶΪ����,�ѷ����Ǩ�е�����������ʩ����Ϊ���¼���:(1��������.Ҳ������������ʱ����"���ݼ���������",�ų��·�������"Ŀǰ�Ѿ������İ���֮��".(2��ʧ����.(3��������.�����ְ���:�� ��ʱ���ϻ�����������"�ü������þɷ��ķ�Χ",�� �Ͽ��ų�����,�� �����·��ij��,�� �¾ɷ��ֶ�����,�� �Ӻ��·���Ч,�� ������ʵ���ƶ�.���,������:<<�����Ǩ�����������뷨���ݼ�����>>,��ѧ�ֳ���ɷ�����˾2008���,��15��21ҳ.
[37]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.432��434.
[38]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & AJ Bok, op. Cit., p.25. ��St. Bavo����,����Ժ˾����(the Judicial Division of the State Council�����о�,��Ϊ,���������Ҫ���������,ֻ���ڼ���������������²ſ��Գ���,���ұ�����һ��������,�������⳥.���о��Ĺ������Ϊ<<һ��������>>��ȷ��.Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.440��441.
[39]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.439��440.
[40]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & AJ Bok, op. Cit., p.23.
[41]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.443.
[42]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.443��444.
[43]Cf. JG Brouwer & AE Schilder, op. Cit., p.45. also Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.444.
[44]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.444.
[45]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.445.
[46]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.445.
[47]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.446.
[48]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.446.
[49]��ͳ��Լ(patrimonial contract,��������������˽������ǩ���Ĵ���˽����ϵ����Լ.������Լ��˽���淶.��Ȩ����Լ(public power contract,�ǹ��ڹ���Ȩ����ʹ�İ���(arrangements about the exercise of public law powers����Լ.Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.448.
[50]����,��������ͬ��ı䵱�س��й滮,ǰ���ǵ�������������ǩ��һ����Լ,��ŵ֧��һ��Ǯ.Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.448.
[51]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., p.450.
[52]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.450��451.
[53]Cf. JBJM ten Berge & RJGM Widdershoven, op. Cit., pp.450��451.
[54]�μ�,������:"�������ϺϷ�Ԥ��֮����",����<<�й�����ѧ>>2003���3��. ת���� ��������������� http://www.hi138.com
Newest Research Papers
- Newest
- Administrative law Papers
- The rise of the Internet era to create a large network of integrated marketing value
- Chinese students in English language writing negative transfer network to write papers analyzing _ _ net _ to write thesis papers Network
- Chinese students' English pronunciation problems On
- On the "Wuthering Heights"
- On building a culture of three sources of English and American Literature Literature Teaching Corpus improve
- Anglo-American literature on the characteristics of the strange language
- American Literature on the College English curriculum
- On the teaching of English and American Literature on film and literature interaction
- On the Anglo-American literature class on the social and cultural background knowledge in the import
- On the Anglo-American literature in the vague language of the translation strategies
- Anglo-American literature on the reform of teaching in the multimedia
- On the Multimedia in the Teaching of English and American Literature
- Carried out on university English classroom teaching of English and American Literature and challenges the status quo
- Analysis of critical discourse on the Teaching of English and American Literature courses
- On teaching English and American Literature in English in an important position papers to write network _
MOST POPULAR Administrative law Papers
- 24Hours
- 7Days
- 30Days
- Stressors on ICU nurses and Countermeasures
- About Vocational School of Health to develop education and training
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- About bracket theory in vocational English Listening Teaching
- Hangzhou guide the work on the practice patterns of family education
- On the new curriculum of high school language teaching
- On the secondary school mathematics teaching poor students into thinking about the problem
- Stressors on ICU nurses and Countermeasures
- Students on full play the main role in the teaching of English
- About Vocational School of Health to develop education and training
- How mathematics teaching in primary schools to implement quality education
- Psychological Contract Perspective counselor burnout causes and Countermeasures
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network
- Amy Tan novel about mother-daughter relationship between culture _ paper to write network