In the case of Byankov the Court of Justice ruled as follows: EU law must be interpreted as precluding legislation under which an administrative procedure that has resulted in the adoption of a prohibition on leaving the territory, which has become final and has not been contested before the courts, may be reopened - in the event of the prohibition being clearly contrary to EU law - only in circumstances such as those exhaustively listed in Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, despite the fact that such a prohibition continues to produce legal effects with regard to its addressee. This study discusses how the ruling can be placed in the case law of the Court that in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, EU law does not require that administrative authorities be placed under an obligation to re-examine a national final administrative decision. |
Netherlands Administrative Law Library
Over dit tijdschriftMeld u zich hier aan voor de attendering op dit tijdschrift zodat u direct een mail ontvangt als er een nieuw digitaal nummer is verschenen en u de artikelen online kunt lezen.
juli, 2013
Alle samenvattingen uitklappen
Article (without peer review) |
Het arrest Byankov: specifieke Unierechtelijke plicht tot heroverweging van een in rechte onaantastbaar besluit |
Auteurs | Rolf Ortlep |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |