Theory of Administrative Discretion: the Stages of Formation

Administrative discretion is an important construction of modern administrative law, the formation of which in many respects can be viewed as a “struggle” to limit the discretionary powers of the subjects of state administration. It is well known that good governance would be impossible without administrative discretion. There are four stages in the development of the modern theory of administrative discretion and each stage was devoted to one aspect of this one but these stages did not coincide chronologically and developed in parallel. They had a different methodology, which was used by the founders and followers of the approaches prevailing at each stage. The first stage started in France and formed by the 18th century. This related to the concept of prudent governance exercised prudent officials who were ruled by enlightened monarch. Their decisions were not reviewed by the courts. The principle of reasonable is the modern result of this stage – an absolutely unreasonable administrative act is null and void. The second stage developed in parallel with the first one but formed by the 19th century. Administrative discretion was formed as legal concept on this stage, and it was presented as free discretion, which also could not be a subject to judicial review. The third stage, characterized by competition between administrative justice and free discretion, took place at the end of the 19th and the middle of the 20th. Judicial possibilities for reviewing discretionary acts gradually expanded, criteria for evaluating such acts were created. These criteria were incorporated into the laws and legal judicial positions after the fourth stage began. The creative side of discretion has become a very important part of this legal construction, administrative discretion at this stage is defined as a way of laws concretizing. Nowadays, the third and fourth stages are developing in parallel in Russia. It should be noted that the Russian administrative law doctrine was formed as a common doctrine Civil Law system. Russian authors always used the methodology of Civil Law system, developed it, but they paid attention to the specifics of our administrative law, our governing and historical development. Nevertheless, Russian doctrine needs more research in order to create more legally formalized administrative discretion. As a result, the legislature and courts should receive academic decisions suitable for implementation.

1. Müßig U. Tezners Schriften zur Verwaltungsrechtspflege in Österreich und ihre Impulse für den modernen Gerichtsbegriff. Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte Österreichs. 2016;2:345-378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/BRGOE2016-2s345 (In German).

2. Evtikhiev A. F. Discretion (das freie Ermessen) of the Administration. Journal of the Ministry of Justice. 1910;5:77-101. (In Russ.).

3. Voltaire. Philosophical Writings. Moscow: Nauka Publ.; 1988. 751 p. (In Russ.).

4. Tomsinov V. A. Luminary of the Russian Bureaucracy. Historical Portrait of M. M. Speransky. 5th ed. Moscow: Zertsalo-M Publ.; 2013. 457 p. (In Russ.).

5. De Falco V. Administrative Action and Procedures in Comparative Law. Hague: Eleven International Publ.; 2018. 280 p.

6. Cane P. Administrative Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. 496 p.

7. Craig P. Proportionality, Rationality and Review. New Zealand Law Review. 2010;2:265-301.

8. Bodin J. Method for Easy Comprehension of History. Vol. II. The Type of Government in States. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publ.; 2021. 560 p. (In Russ.).

9. Duguit L. Social Law, Individual Law and the Transformation of the State: Lectures Given in 1908 at the Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris. Moscow: N. N. Klochkov Publ.; 1909. 148 p. (In Russ.).

10. Zinzi M. The Idea of Proportionality in the French Legal System. In: Sherstoboev O. N., Davydov K. V., Cenerelli A. (Eds.). Annual Comparative Administrative Law Review 2021. Novosibirsk: NSUEM Publ.; 2022. P. 35–44.

11. Püttner G. Ermessen und Ermessensausübung. Gedanken zur Weiterentwicklung der Ermessenslehre. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht. 2008;63:345-357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00708-008-0007-1 (In German)

12. Odarchenko A. N. On the Limits of Administrative Discretion. Law and Life. 1925;6:3-12. (In Russ.).

13. Zagryatskov M. Right of Complaint. Theory and Types of Complaints, Administrative Process, Legal Properties of the Decision. Law and Life. 1923;9/10:64-82. (In Russ.).

14. Kobalevskii V. Essays on Soviet Administrative Law. Kharkov: State Publishing of Ukraine, 1924. 258 p. (In Russ.).

15. Studenikin S. S. About Some Questions of the Soviet Socialist Administrative Law. Soviet State. 1938;1:117- 145. (In Russ.).

16. Lazarev B. M. Competence of the State Body: Rights and Obligations or Legal Capacity? Soviet State and Law. 1968;11:27-35. (In Russ.).

17. Bonner A. T. Application of the Law and Judicial. Soviet State and Law. 1979;6:34-42. (In Russ.).

18. Manokhin V. M. Problems of Administrative Law in the Light of the Decisions of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU. In: Abstracts of the Reports of the All-Union Scientific and Coordination Meeting of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU and the Tasks of the Further Development of Legal Science, October 19–21, 1981. Moscow: Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR Publ.; 1981. P. 58–61. (In Russ.).

19. Schmidt-Aßmann E. Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee: Grundlagen und Aufgaben der verwaltungsrechtlichen Systembildung. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. 470 p. (In German).

20. Jellinek W. Verwaltungsrecht. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1931. 571 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-99337-4 (In German).

21. Schmidt-Aßmann E. Codification of Legislation on Administrative Procedures: Traditions and Models. In: Public Law Yearbook 2017: Discretion and Value Concepts in Administrative Law. Moscow: Infotropik Media Publ.; 2017. P. 332–362. (In Russ.).

22. Vedel G. Administrative Law of France. Moscow: Progress Publ.; 1973. 511 p. (In Russ.).

23. Ziekow J. Function and Structure of the Proportionality principle in German Public Law. In: Sherstoboev O. N., Davydov K. V., Cenerelli A. (Eds.). Annual Comparative Administrative Law Review 2021. Novosibirsk: NSUEM Publ.; 2022. P. 17–26.

24. Pünder H. German Administrative Procedure in a Comparative Perspective: Observations on the Path to a Transnational Ius Commune Proceduralis in Administrative Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2013;11(4):940-961. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot045

25. Starilov Yu. N. Administrative Procedures – Integral Part of the Legislation About State and Municipal Management: Problems of Theory, Practice and Lawmaking. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Pravo. 2019;4:8-27. (In Russ.).

26. Solovey Yu. P. Discretionary Nature of Administrative Act as a Circumstance Precluding Judicial Review of its Legality. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2019;4:72-99. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.4.72.99 (In Russ.).

27. Davydov E. V. Administrative Procedures: Russian and Foreign Experience. Novosibirsk: Akademizdat Publ.; 2020. 516 p. (In Russ.).

28. Mitskevich L. A. Essays on the Theory of Administrative Law: Modern Content. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2015. 296 p. (In Russ.).

29. Vasil’eva A. F. The Obligatory Nature of an Administrative Act as a Manifestation of its Material Legal Force. In: German Doctrine of Administrative Law and the Formation of the Institute of Administrative Procedures in the Countries of Central Asia. Toshkent: Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan Publ.; 2022. P. 130–149. (In Russ.).