On 24 May Marcelle Reneman will defend her legal opinion (preadvies) ‘Union Law limits on the finality of administrative decisions’ during the annual meeting of the Administrative Law Association (Vereniging voor Bestuursrecht (VAR)). The theme of the annual meeting is the future of the principle of finality of administrative decisions. The three other authors who prepared a legal opinion for the meeting are Jaap Polak, Thomas Sanders and Bart Roozendaal. They write about the principle of the finality of administrative decisions in chain decision-making in administrative law (ketenbesluitvorming) and actions for damages.
In her legal opinion Marcelle Reneman discusses the CJEU’s case law concerning both the principle of finality of administrative decisions and the principle of res judicata. She concludes that the CJEU generally respects the principle of finality of administrative decisions and does not require Member States to provide for procedures to revise an administrative decision in order to prevent or repair violations of Union law. However, the CJEU does seem to set limits to the scope of application of both the principle of finality of administrative decisions and the principle of res judicata. It does not accept that a final administrative or judicial decision, which violates Union law, should be considered legal in a subsequent procedure, for example a procedure for damages. The second part of the legal opinion discusses the issue of subsequent asylum application in the context of Union law. Also here the principle of the finality of administrative decisions plays a role. Developments in Union law applicable to asylum procedures have led to changes in the Dutch administrative system, in particular the judicial review of rejections of subsequent (asylum) applications. The advice argues that the interpretation by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (AJD), the highest administrative court in the Netherlands of the Union law framework for subsequent asylum procedures, is not in conformity with EU law. It particularly concerns the AJD’s interpretation of the term ‘new element or finding’ mentioned in Article 40 of the Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU) and the question when the late submission of evidence is attributable to the asylum applicant. Moreover, it is contended that the different exceptions to the principle of finality of administrative decisions are too narrow and that their mutual relationship is unclear.
See here the vlog on the four legal opinions (in Dutch).