Advertisement

Judicial Remedies and Procedure

  • Mahendra P. Singh

Abstract

In considering the nature of judicial remedies in German law a common lawyer has to bear in mind some basic aspects of that law which are at variance with the common law. While for a common lawyer judicial remedy means remedy in the ordinary courts the German law assigns administrative matters to the administrative courts.1 Judicial remedy here means remedy in the administrative courts and not in the ordinary courts which except in few specified matters have no jurisdiction in administrative matters. Second, although common law does not exclude administrative matters from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, it fully recognizes the need for specialist tribunals to deal with such matters. The German law recognizes no administrative tribunals apart from the administrative courts. Therefore, a person can approach the courts directly except where the law requires exhaustion of the administrative remedy in the limited sense, to be mentioned below, before coming to the administrative courts. Thus, except when an appeal in the court is provided against a decision of an administrative tribunal the judicial remedy in common law is of supervisory nature while the remedy provided in the German administrative courts is the primary remedy.

Keywords

Administrative Authority Preliminary Ruling Legal Remedy Legal Relationship Administrative Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See above, p.104ff.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    This distinction between the private and public law remedies in administrative matters has been abondoned in the federal courts in the United States where now only private law remedies of injunction and declaration are sought against the administrative excesses.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See the Specific Relief Act 1963, ss 34–41.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment No 3)1977, S I No 1955 (L 30) which came into force on Jan 11, 1978. Now enacted in the Supreme Court Act 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decision of 25 May 1962, 14 BVerwGE 202.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decision of 7 Oct 1955, 2 BVerwGE 229.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tschira O, Glaeser WS: Verwaltungsprozessrecht,216 (3d ed, 1977). See also decision of 20 July 1962, 14 BVerwGE 323.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decision of 10 Feb 1960 BVerwG [1960] DVBI 437.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ule CH: Verwaltungsprozessrecht,165 (7th ed, 1978); Tschira, Glaeser, above, n 7 at 46ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ule, id,at 167. Also decision of 28 June 1963, 16 BVerwGE 187.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decision of 7 Oct 1955, 2 BVerwGE 229, 231.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Compare, decision of 5 March 1968, 29 BVerwGE 166, 171.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For an opposition to the introduction of such laws see Schmidt-Assmann E: Verwaltungsverantwortung und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit,34 WDStRL 222, 272 (1976).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Dijk P: Judicial Review of Governmental Action and the Requirement of an Interest to Sue,194 (1980).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Smith SA: Judicial Review of Administrative Action,409 (4th ed, 1980 by Evans JM). For a similar statement on German law see Ule, above, n 9 at 165.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Dijk, above, n 14 at 72.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Smith, above, n 15 at 416, 418.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See, for example, R v Liverpool Corporation, exp. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operator’s Association [197212 QB 299 and R v GLC, exp Blackburn [1976] 1 WLR 550.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    RSC, Ord 53, r 3 (5) cited in de Smith SA, above, n 14 at 415.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    JM Desai v Roshan Kumar,AIR 1976 SC 578. Among such factors the court mentioned the content and intent of the statute of which contrvention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of petitioner’s interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injustice suffered by him.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vardarajan v Salem Municipality,AIR 1973 Rom 55.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diva Karan v Director Dy, Fishries,AIR 1975 Ker 9; Warangal Chamber of Commerce v Director of Marketing,AIR 1975 AP 245. For more cases and details see Jain MP, Jain SN: Principles of Administrative Law,399ff (3d ed, 1979).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    SP Gupta and Others v Union of India&Others,AIR 1982 SC 149 at 194. Also National Textile Worker’s Union v PR Ramakrishnan,AIR 1983 SC 75.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp,397 US 150,154 (1970).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Dijk, above, n 14 at 197.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid. This is different in France also where the authorities may be asked to observe the law although no one’s rights are specifically infringed. See Crossland HG: Rights of the Individual to Challenge Administrative Action before Administrative Courts in France and Germany, 24 Int’l&Comp L Q 707, 730 (1975).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See Veerappa v Raman,AIR 1952 SC 192 and CA Abraham v ITO,AIR 1961 SC 609.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See State of UPv Md Nooh,AIR 1958 SC 86.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pendency of a matter in a constitutional court does not affect the institution of a suit in an administrative court; see decision of 5 Feb 1976, 50 BVerwGE 124, 129.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    This provision has been made permanent in the draft Law on Procedure in Administrative Courts, s 113.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ule CH: 25 Jahre Bundesverwaltungsgericht,[1978] DVB1 553 at 561.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Decision of 28 June 1978 - Fall König - [1978] EuGRZ, 406.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Papier H-J: Die Stellung der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit im demokratischen Rechtsstaat,9ff (1979); Sendler H: Zum Instanzenzug in der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit,[1982] DVB1 157.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    No specific figures with respect to administrative matters are available, but other matters on an average take more than ten years till the high court stage and if the matter also goes to the Supreme Court another five years or more may be added. For some rough figures see Lodha GM, Wanted Evolution or Revolution in Judiciary?, AIR 1982 (J) 17 ff. Also Dhavan R: The Supreme Court under Strain: The Challenge of Arrears (1978).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Art 104 (1). This right is considered to be as good as a fundamental right.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Decision of 9 Oct 1973, 36 BVerfGE 85, 87.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Decision of 25 Jan 1974, 44 BVerwGE 307&of 4 Nov 1976, 51 BVerwGE 277.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Above, p 112.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    For the position in England and India see Conway v Rimmer[1968] AC 910; Amar Chand Butai! NI Union of India,AIR 1964 SC 1658; State of UPv Raj Narain,AIR 1975 SC 865; SP Gupta and Others v Union of India and Others,AIR 1982 SC 149.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    The five kinds of decisions are: judgments (Urteile),orders (Beschlüsse),preliminary rulings (Vorbescheide),court rulings (Gerichtsbescheide),and directions (Anordnungen or Verfügungen). The first four are given by the court or division while the last one are given by the presiding judge. Generally speaking a judgment normally disposes of the disputes finally while an order is given during the course of proceedings. A preliminary ruling is given on the admissibility of a suit and a court ruling is given unanimously to decide whether an oral hearing is required. Directions are generally given by the presiding judge during the course of oral proceedings.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See Appendix IV.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Under the Law for the Uniformity of Judicial Decisions of 1968 a revision can be filed if the challenged judgment differs from a judgment of any of the five federal courts.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    VwGO, s 137. According to s 138 a federal law is always violated if either the court was not properly constituted, or a judge who was excluded by law or was biased has participated, or a legal hearing was denied to a party, or a party was not represented according to the provisions of law or if the oral proceedings were not held in open, or the judgment is not furnished with grounds or reasons. Further, it has been suggested that the limitation of s 137 does not prevent the Federal Administrative Court from deciding cases arising under state laws so long as any federal issue is involved. See Pakuscher EK: Administrative Law in Germany - Citizen v. State, 16 Am J Comp L 309, 329 (1968–69).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    VwGO, s 80.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Decisions of 2 Sept 1963, 16 BVerwGE 289 and of 29 Oct 1963,17 BVerwGE 83.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Id,decision of 2 Sept 1963.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    VwGO, s 153.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Id,s 167.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Id, s 172. It is instructive for the Indian lawyers and law-makers where some times even the Supreme Court orders are not implemented for as many as twelve years. See Devaki Nandan Prasad v State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1134.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    See Ule, above, n 31; Sendler, above, n 33, and the statement of reasons on the individual clauses of the draft of the Law on Procedure in Administrative Courts (Verwaltungsprozessordnung) of 19 March 1982 at 61 (Now BR-Dr 148/83).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Entwurf einer Verwaltungsprozessordnung of 19 March 1982 ss 4 and 113 (Now BR-Dr 148/83).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahendra P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations