With the aim to reduce administrative burden for supervised many inspections are 'deduplicated': similar groups of citizens are treated similarly and similar activities are carried out in the same way within one organization. Deduplication should increase flexibility within the inspection as inspectors are able to fulfill their job in any domain. Deduplication is based on the fulfillment of two conditions. The first is that the enforcement tools, or the powers that perform these inspections, are not too different. The second relates to the use of these instruments that has to be somewhat uniform as well. These conditions are assessed in a case study of the Transport and Water Management Inspectorate. It is concluded that in particular the style of rule enforcement differs and is not easy to standardize.

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.