Year: 2021
Author: Oebbecke, Janbernd
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 54 (2021), Iss. 2 : pp. 273–294
Abstract
Collegial bodies can react to time pressure either by speeding up their procedure or by transferring urgent decisions to a special organ which can decide very quickly. In Germany, the representative bodies of local government have both options. This article examines decisions of urgency taken by a special organ of local government. This article analyses the circumstances in which such decisions are taken based on the relevant literature as well as on self-collected data from cities in North Rhine Westphalia. The results can be put into five categories. Although the relevant Länder laws vary at the level of detail, they are united by a common structure. They determine that a decision is urgent only when the representative body – even applying an accelerated procedure – cannot decide in time. They set out which organ is legally competent to decide and require that the representative body of local government either approves the decision in retrospect or is, at least, informed of it. According to these regulations the decision of urgency is always concomitant with a decision on the legal competency of the special organ and on the administrative matter at hand. Their application raises numerous legal questions. In the majority of cases, decisions of urgency are taken in violation of the legal requirement, even though the representative body could have taken the decision by applying an accelerated procedure. From the perspective of those involved calling a special meeting takes too much time and effort to decide on an issue which is, in most cases, completely uncontested. Currently, a correction of this unlawful practice by legal means virtually impossible. It is, therefore, suggested that each member of the representative body should be given standing to bring a claim for judicial review. In terms of legal policy, urgent decisions should to be allowed also when the representative body cannot decide in time at the next regular meeting.
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.54.2.273
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 54 (2021), Iss. 2 : pp. 273–294
Published online: 2021-04
AMS Subject Headings: Duncker & Humblot
Copyright: COPYRIGHT: © Global Science Press
Pages: 21
Author Details
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Janbernd Oebbecke: Kollegialentscheidungen unter Zeitdruck | 273 | ||
| Empirie, Theorie und Dogmatik der Dringlichkeitsentscheidungen im Kommunalrecht | 273 | ||
| I. Kollegialentscheidungen und der Umgang mit Zeitdruck | 273 | ||
| II. Dringlichkeitsentscheidungen in der Praxis | 274 | ||
| 1. Der Spiegel des Schrifttums | 274 | ||
| 2. Eigene Erhebung | 275 | ||
| 3. Einflussfaktoren | 277 | ||
| III. Rechtsvergleich und Theorie der Dringlichkeitsentscheidung | 278 | ||
| 1. Dringlichkeitsstufe | 279 | ||
| 2. Dringlichkeitstatbestand | 279 | ||
| 3. Das Dringlichkeitsorgan | 280 | ||
| 4. Das Folgeverfahren | 281 | ||
| 5. Der Doppelcharakter der Dringlichkeitsentscheidung | 281 | ||
| IV. Praxis und Rechtsfragen | 273 | ||
| 1. Zulässige Gegenstände von Dringlichkeitsentscheidungen | 273 | ||
| 2. Der Tatbestand der Dringlichkeit | 273 | ||
| 3. Das Dringlichkeitsorgan | 273 | ||
| 4. Das Folgeverfahren | 273 | ||
| V. Die Durchsetzung der gesetzlichen Vorgaben | 273 | ||
| 1. Rechtsschutz gegen die Sachentscheidung | 273 | ||
| 2. Die Durchsetzung der Regeln für die Zuständigkeitsentscheidung | 273 | ||
| VI. Rechtspolitische Optionen | 273 | ||
| Abstract | 274 |