Year: 2020
Author: Eichenhofer, Johannes
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 53 (2020), Iss. 4 : pp. 501–534
Abstract
In the social constitutional state, the administration’s mandate is not limited to making legal and expedient decisions. According to § 25 of the German Administrative Procedure Act and parallel provisions in social, tax and procurement laws, the office administrators are obliged to advise the individual to a certain extent on the exercise of their rights, whereby the requirement of legality and expediency is at least to some extent supplemented by a requirement of optimization. The present contribution will discuss the justification, the regulatory context, and the extent of the duty to provide advice, as well as the consequences of insufficient or incorrect advice. The institution of official advice is interesting for the discipline of administrative law as it stands at the interface of civil law and administrative law (substantive and procedural), and therefore, is able to reconstruct its dogmatic form on the basis of the “doctrine of legal relations”. Finally, the official duties to advise exemplify how administrative procedural law deals with information risks – a hitherto neglected component of general information administrative law.
You do not have full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber? Sign in as an individual or via your institution
Journal Article Details
Publisher Name: Global Science Press
Language: German
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.53.4.501
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 53 (2020), Iss. 4 : pp. 501–534
Published online: 2020-10
AMS Subject Headings: Duncker & Humblot
Copyright: COPYRIGHT: © Global Science Press
Pages: 34
Author Details
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Johannes Eichenhofer: Behördliche Beratung und Informationsrisiko | 501 | ||
| I. Problemstellung | 501 | ||
| II. Begründung behördlicher Beratungspflichten | 503 | ||
| 1. Entdeckung durch die Zivilgerichte | 503 | ||
| 2. Verfassungsrechtliche Herleitung | 505 | ||
| 3. Verwaltungsrechtliche Rezeption | 507 | ||
| III. Regelungssystematischer Kontext: Der Untersuchungsgrundsatz (§ 24 VwVfG) und die freie Beweiswahl (§ 26 VwVfG) | 509 | ||
| 1. Systematischer Standort im VwVfG | 509 | ||
| 2. Verfahrensrechtlicher Hintergrund | 501 | ||
| 3. Anwendungsbereich des § 25 VwVfG | 501 | ||
| IV. Reichweite der Beratungspflichten | 501 | ||
| V. Fehlerfolgen | 502 | ||
| 1. Folgenbeseitigungsanspruch | 502 | ||
| 2. Herstellungsanspruch | 502 | ||
| 3. Amtshaftungsanspruch | 502 | ||
| 4. Schadensersatzanspruch aus öffentlich-rechtlichem Schuldverhältnis | 502 | ||
| V. Versuch einer Einordnung in die allgemeine Verwaltungsrechtsdogmatik | 502 | ||
| 1. Die Doppelnatur der Beratung als materiell-rechtliche Handlung und „Verfahrenshandlung” | 502 | ||
| 2. Analyse anhand der Rechtsverhältnislehre | 502 | ||
| VI. Behördliche Beratung und Informationsrisiko | 503 | ||
| 1. Optimierungsrisiko | 503 | ||
| 2. Aufklärungsrisiko | 503 | ||
| 3. Haftungsrisiko | 503 | ||
| 4. Zusammenfassung | 503 | ||
| Abstract | 503 |