The Imperative of Administrative Efficacy vs the Stability of Procedural Guarantees for Parties: Selected Issues in the Context of Applying General Principles

The article analyses the fundamental dilemma of contemporary administrative proceedings, in which the pursuit of greater efficacy of public administration bodies conflicts with the obligation to maintain the stability of procedural guarantees for the parties. The study focuses on the practice of applying selected general principles of the Administrative Procedure Code in the context of the ongoing digitisation of public administration. The authors adopt a praxeological understanding of efficacy, distinguishing it from the narrower concept of efficiency, which is justified by the constitutional approach to the functioning of public institutions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the relationship between the principle of promptness and simplicity of proceedings and other general principles, such as the principle of objective truth, active participation of the parties, and cooperation between authorities. The introduction of Article 14 § 1b of the Administrative Procedure Code, concerning the automation of case handling, is critically assessed, pointing to the risk of overinterpreting the provision in the direction of full automation of administrative decisions. The analysis shows that maintaining a balance between efficacy and procedural security requires the development of a new homeostasis that takes into account not only the directive of promptness but also the stability of procedural guarantees in an environment of digital procedural security and coherence between other principles of administrative proceedings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2025.34.2.357-373
Primary Topic
Ombudsman and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Imperative of Administrative Efficacy vs the Stability of Procedural Guarantees for Parties: Selected Issues in the Context of Applying General Principles

Arkadiusz Bereza, Marzena Świstak
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
Ombudsman and Human Rights
article

The Imperative of Administrative Efficacy vs the Stability of Procedural Guarantees for Parties: Selected Issues in the Context of Applying General Principles

Arkadiusz Bereza, Marzena Świstak
article en

Abstract

The article analyses the fundamental dilemma of contemporary administrative proceedings, in which the pursuit of greater efficacy of public administration bodies conflicts with the obligation to maintain the stability of procedural guarantees for the parties. The study focuses on the practice of applying selected general principles of the Administrative Procedure Code in the context of the ongoing digitisation of public administration. The authors adopt a praxeological understanding of efficacy, distinguishing it from the narrower concept of efficiency, which is justified by the constitutional approach to the functioning of public institutions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the relationship between the principle of promptness and simplicity of proceedings and other general principles, such as the principle of objective truth, active participation of the parties, and cooperation between authorities. The introduction of Article 14 § 1b of the Administrative Procedure Code, concerning the automation of case handling, is critically assessed, pointing to the risk of overinterpreting the provision in the direction of full automation of administrative decisions. The analysis shows that maintaining a balance between efficacy and procedural security requires the development of a new homeostasis that takes into account not only the directive of promptness but also the stability of procedural guarantees in an environment of digital procedural security and coherence between other principles of administrative proceedings.

Studia Iuridica LublinensiaVol. 34(2)
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (PL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Ombudsman and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.