Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers

  • Chapter
German Administrative Law

Abstract

Discretionary powers of the administration are as much an important phenomenon in German law as they are in common law or in any other legal system of today. They are no longer considered inconsistent with the notion of a just society. On the contrary there is a growing realization that such powers are necessary to achieve a just social order and to make the rule of law a positive reality. Of course, that does no mean that the administration must be given unlimited and unnecessary discretion, nor does it mean that the administration must be free from all limitations in the exercise of the discretion.1 Discretion does not mean arbitrariness. In the words of Lord Halsbury:2

‘discretion’ means when it is said that something is to be within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke’s Case: according to law and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See Davis KC: Discretionary Justice,chs I and III (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173. Cited in Wade HWR: Administrative Law,152–153 (5th ed, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  3. ) 5 Co Rep 99 b.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See decisions of 30 Oct 1906, 50 PrOVG 417, 421: of 1 Nov 1934, 94 PrOVG 210; of 29 Nov 1964, 19 BVerwGE 332, 335; of 27 March, 1968, 29 BVerwGE 235; of 13 Feb 1974, 45 BVerwGE 13, 24; of 3 Feb 1959, 9 BVerfGE 134, 147; of 25 Feb 1962, 14 BVerfGE 105; Jellinek W: Verwaltungsrecht,64 (3d ed, 1931); Forsthoff E:Lehrbuch des Verwaltungsrecht I,97 (10th ed 1973); Maurer H: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht,89 (1980); Wolff HJ, Bachof O: Verwaltungsrecht I,198 (9th ed, 1974); Badura P, Das Verwaltungshandeln,in Erichsen H-U, Martens W (eds): Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht,165 (4th ed, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  5. See VwVfG, s 113 and VwGO 114. Compare, USC, s 706 (2) (A).

    Google Scholar 

  6. See, for example, State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali,AIR 1952 SC 75; State of Punjab v Khan Chand,AIR 1974 SC 543; State of MPv Baldev Prasad,AIR 1961 SC 293; Raghubir v Court of Wards,AIR 1953 SC 373; Dwarka Prasad v State of UP, AIR 1954 SC 224. Not only that, the Supreme Court of India has expressed itself in very wide terms against the conferment of unguided discretion. In Jaisinghaniv Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427 at 1434 it observed: In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. Compare the words quoted above at p 84.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Decision of 3 Feb 1959, 9 BVerfGE 137, 147.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decision of 10 July 1958, 8 BVerfGE 71.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Decision of 5 Aug 1966, 20 BVerfGE 150, 157–58.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Decision of 8 Aug 1978, 49 BVerfGE 89,157–59.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Müller HJ: Das Ermessen in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts,[1960] DÖV 119, 127. Also see Pakuscher EK: The Use of Discretion in German Law, 44 UChiLRev 94 (1976). For a criticism of the Indian Supreme Court’s tendency to allow wider grant of discretion in India see Jain MP, Jain SN: Principles of Indian Administrative Law,347 ff (3d ed, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 199 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Decision of 24 Nov 1969, 34 BVerwGE 241.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Decisions of 13 Dec 1962, 15 BVerwGE 196, 199, and of 28 Feb 1975, 48 BVerwGE 81, 84.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Decision of 17 Jan 1958, 6 BVerwGE 119, 127. Also decision of 1 June 1979 [1980] NJW 75 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Decision of 22 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 212.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Id, at 213–14. Comp, Shri Rama Sugar Industries v State of AP, AIR 1974 SC 1745.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Decision of 25 July 1964, 19 BVerwGE 48, 55.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Decision of 8 July 1964, 19 BVerwGE 87, 92. Also decision of 19 Dec 1972 (OVG Münster) [1973] DVBI 963.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Decision of 22 Sept 1970, 22 VR 487 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Decision of 28 Feb 1975, 48 BVerwGE 81, 84. Also Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 200.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Decision of 18 Aug 1960,11 BVerwGE 95, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Decision of 13 Dec 1974, 47 BVerwGE 280, 283 and of 7 July 1978, 56 BVerwGE 63.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Decision of 7 July 1978, 56 BVerwGE 56. For a plea of objectivity in the matter of denial of such permission see Löhr R-P: Zum Ermessen bei Erlaubnis oder Versagung einer Sondernutzung,[1983] NVwZ 20.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See decisions of 14 June 1882, 9 PrOVG 353 and of 10 April 1886, 13 PrOVG 424, 426.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See Hirschberg L: Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäfjigkeit,43–44 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Decision of 15 Dec 1965, 19 BVerfGE 342, 348–39.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Decisions of 4 Feb 1975, 38 BVerfGE 348, 368 and of 5 March 1968, 23 BVerfGE 127, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Decision of 5 June 1973, 35 BVerfGE 202, 221.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Decision of 8 Feb 1977, 43 BVerfGE 242, 288.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Decision of 9 Nov 1976, 43 BVerfGE 101, 106.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See Wade, above n 2 at 752 ff and de Smith SA: Judicial Review of Administrative Action 354–56 (4th ed, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See Const of India, art 19 (2)-(6).

    Google Scholar 

  34. The right to equality in article 14 admits reasonable classification and through article 14 the concept of reasonableness has been extended to the right to life and liberty in article 21. See, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India,AIR 1978 SC 597.

    Google Scholar 

  35. On the question of reasonableness of executive legislation see Jain and Jain, above, n 11 at 61–63.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682, 700.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See Chintaman Rao v. MP,AIR 1951 SC 118; Madras v. Row VG,AIR 1952 SC 196 in so far as the court emphasizes the proportionality of the restrictions with the public interest to be served.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Decision of 5 May 1908, 52 PrOVG, 419.

    Google Scholar 

  39. OVG Berlin, 115.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Decision of 5 Nov 1968, 31 BVerwGE 15.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Decision of 30 Oct 1970, 27 OVG LüneburgE 321, 325.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wolff, Bachof: Verwaltungsrecht III,202 (4th ed, 1978) suggest that out of public resources only that much be granted to an individual as is necessary.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Decision of 16 March 1967,17 BWVGHE 227.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Decision of 3 June 1982, [ 1983 ] NVwZ 93, 94 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Decision of 12 Jan 1962, 13 BVerwGE 288.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Decision of 14 April 1967, 26 BVerwGE 305, 309; also of 16 Dec 1971, 39 BVerwGE 190, 195.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Decision of 29 Sept 1965 [1966] DÖV 249 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Drews, Wacke, Vogel, Martens: Gefahrenabwehr,156 (8th ed, 1975 by Vogel K).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Decision of 16 Oct 1963 of BW VGH cited in Drews et al, above, n 48.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Decision of 20 March 1970, 22 VR 64, 67 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  51. BVerwGE 75, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Decisions of 13 Nov 1979, 59 BVerwGE 105 and 112.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Id,at 109.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See Wade, above n 2 at 507 ff. Compare, Wong Yang Sungv. McGrath,339 US 33 (1950) and the subsequent developments in Gellhom, Byse, Strauss: Administrative Law, 168 (7th ed, 1979 ).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Drews, et al above, n 48.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  57. de Smith, above, n 32 at 325 ff; Jain and Jain, above n 11 at 490–91.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See above, p 85.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See, for example, decisions of 2 July 1963, 16 BVerwGE 194, 196 and of 18 Sept 1970, 36 BVerwGE 119.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Decision of 1 Oct 1909, 55 PrOVG 459.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Decision of 2 March 1971, 37 BVerwGE 283.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Decision of 22 Jan 1971, 37 BVerwGE 116.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Decision of 18 Sept 1970, 36 BVerwGE 119.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Decisions of 16 July 1970, 35 BVerwGE 291, 294; of 13 Nov 1979, 59 BVerwGE 105 and 112; and of 26 Feb 1980, 60 BVerwGE 75. Also decision of 18 July 1979, 51 BVerfGE 386.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Decision of 2 July 1963, 16 BVerwGE 194.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Decision of 13 Feb 1958, 6 BVerwGE 186.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Decision of 26 Aug 81 [1983] NVwZ 49 (OVG Luneburg).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Decision of 3 May 1973, 42 BVerwGE 133.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Decision of 16 June 1970, 35 BVerwGE 291.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Decision of 17 Jan 1980, 59 BVerwGE 284.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Decision of 12 July 1972, 40 BVerwGE 237.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Decision of 25 Oct 1978, 56 BVerwGE 355.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Decision of 7 Feb 1952, 6 VR 71, 73 (WB VGH).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Decision of 25 Nov 1964, 21 OVG 1, 10 Münster. Also decision of 14. Sep 1981 [1982] NVwZ 194 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  75. See Drews et al, above, n 48 at 146.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See Jain and Jain, above, n 11 at 522 ff. The recent notable decisions are: JPKulshreshtha v Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2541; Omprakash v Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1001, Vishundas Hundamal v State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1636; Allied Transport Co v State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1639.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Decision of 12 Dec 1962, 15 BVerwGE 190, 196; and of 22 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 212, 214.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Decision of 10 Dec 1969, 34 BVerwGE 278, 281.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Decision of 12 Feb 1964, 16 VR 935 (OVG Münster).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Decision of 30 May 1973, 19–21 Gewerbearchiv 59, 60 (VGH München).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Decision of 13 Oct 1972 41 BVerwGE 34.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Decision of 26 July 1979, 26 Bay VBI 86 (Bay VGH).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Decision of 17 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 190. Also decision of 3 Dec 1981 [1983] NJW 407 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Decision of 12 April 1956, 5 BVerfGE 1.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Decision of 10 Dec 1969, 34 BVerwGE 278, 283.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Decision of 25 July 1962 [1963] DVBI 65 (BVerwG).

    Google Scholar 

  88. For the relationship between discretion and indefinite legal concepts see Ule CH: Verwaltungsprozessrecht,6ff. (7th ed, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Erichsen H-U, Martens W: Das Verwaltungshandeln,in Erichsen, Martens, above, n at 161

    Google Scholar 

  90. Bachof O, Beurteilungsspielraum, Ermessen and unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff in Verwaltungsrecht,[1955] JZ 97.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ule, above, n 88 at 9. Also see Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 192 where they plead that the courts should recognize a prerogative of assessment of the authorities particularly where future developments are involved and the administrative decision does not violate the tolerable limits of the interpretation of a concept. Compare, Rochester Tel. Corp v United States, 307 US 125 (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  92. See Maurer, above, n 4 at 95.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Decision of 15 BVerwGE 207, 208.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Decision of 28 Jan 1966 23 BVerwGE 194, 200f.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Decision of 24 BVerwGE 60, 63 f.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Decision of 26 BVerwGE 65.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Decision of 19 Dec 1968, 31 BVerwGE 149, 152.

    Google Scholar 

  98. BVerwGE 69, 72ff.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Decision of 5 Feb 1963 15 BVerfGE 275, 282.

    Google Scholar 

  100. BVerwGE 197 Also decision of 19 Oct 1971, 39 BVerwGE 355.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Decision of 12 Jan 1966, 23 BVerwGE 112.

    Google Scholar 

  102. BVerwGE 197, 203.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Id,at 205.

    Google Scholar 

  104. BVerwGE 162.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Decision of 9 July 1974, 45 BVerwGE 331.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Decision of 24 July 1975, 49 BVerwGE 79, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Decision of 12 Feb 1976, 50 BVerwGE 161,164ff.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Decision of 17 Feb 1978, 55 BVerwGE 250, 253 f.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Decision of 19 Feb 1982, 65 BVerwGE 73, 75.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Also see the recent Peep-Show Case,above, p 78.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Erichsen and Martens, above, n at 162–3.

    Google Scholar 

  112. See Maurer, above n 4 at 97f; Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 192ff; Achterberg N: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 273 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  113. See Wade, above, n 2 at 249ff and more specifically at 284ff; Davis KC: Administrative Law Text, 545 ff. (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Compare, Baldev Raj v Union of India,AIR 1981 SC 70 where the Supreme Court of India has held that whether the compulsory retirement of a government servant is, `in the public interest’ under rule 56 (J) of the Fundamental Rules is subject to judicial review in so far as the court can judge whether the retirement is in the public interest.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Above, p 71.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, 110007, Delhi, India

    Mahendra P. Singh (Professor of Law)

Authors
  1. Mahendra P. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Singh, M.P. (1985). Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers. In: German Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02457-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02457-7_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-02459-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-02457-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation