QCM : Judicial Review of Administrative Actions — 10 questions

Questions et réponses du QCM

1. What is the primary focus of judicial review in administrative law as discussed in the course?

To examine the legality and fairness of administrative decisions across different legal systems.
To eliminate all discretionary powers of administrative authorities.
To establish the supremacy of administrative agencies over courts.
To promote the independence of administrative agencies from judicial oversight.

To examine the legality and fairness of administrative decisions across different legal systems.

Explication

The primary focus of judicial review in administrative law is to examine the legality, fairness, and reasonableness of administrative decisions across different legal systems. It aims to ensure that administrative actions comply with legal standards and protect rights, balancing administrative autonomy with judicial oversight.

2. What are the roots of judicial review as outlined in the revision sheet?

Natural justice, proportionality, and legality principles.
European Union law, international treaties, and constitutional courts.
Common law traditions, parliamentary sovereignty, and parliamentary statutes.
Executive discretion, administrative convenience, and political accountability.

Natural justice, proportionality, and legality principles.

Explication

The roots include natural justice, proportionality, and legality principles, foundational ideas that underpin judicial review across systems. The other options refer to distinct legal or political sources but are not listed as the roots in this context.

3. Which standard of review is characterized by a broad, variable approach where courts assess whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it?

Reasoned decision requirement
Wednesbury unreasonableness
Chevron deference
Proportionality test

Wednesbury unreasonableness

Explication

Wednesbury unreasonableness is a standard of review originating from UK law, where courts determine whether a decision is so absurd or unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It is a broad and flexible standard that often results in deference to administrative discretion.

4. Which of the following is a French 'Excès de pouvoir' ground for judicial review?

Incompetence, illegality, and purpose.
Arbitrariness, bias, and procedural unfairness.
Lack of evidence, contradiction, and procedural delay.
Disproportionality, reasonableness, and necessity.

Incompetence, illegality, and purpose.

Explication

The 'Excès de pouvoir' grounds focus on incompetence, illegality, and purpose, which serve as specific bases for annulment of administrative acts under French law. The other options include various grounds but are not the core 'Excès de pouvoir' ones.

5. According to the course, how do EU courts generally approach the review of economic regulation and fundamental rights?

They conduct a stricter scrutiny, emphasizing proportionality and fundamental rights.
They do not review economic regulation decisions at all.
They rely solely on the decisions of national courts without independent review.
They apply a lenient, deferential standard similar to the UK Wednesbury test.

They conduct a stricter scrutiny, emphasizing proportionality and fundamental rights.

Explication

EU courts tend to conduct a stricter scrutiny of economic regulation and fundamental rights, emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and balancing interests. This approach reflects a more intense review compared to deference standards, aiming to protect fundamental rights and ensure proportional measures.

6. What does the UK standard of judicial review, 'Wednesbury unreasonableness', imply?

Decisions so absurd that no reasonable authority could make them.
Decisions that violate fundamental rights or proportionality.
Decisions made without procedural fairness.
Decisions based on scientifically unreliable evidence.

Decisions so absurd that no reasonable authority could make them.

Explication

Wednesbury unreasonableness pertains to decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them, emphasizing a high threshold for judicial intervention. The other options relate to different principles or grounds but not this standard.

7. According to the revision sheet, what is a key aspect of the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 for judicial review?

Review grounds include arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion.
Decisions are reviewed mainly for compliance with international law.
The APA promotes deference to agency expertise without review.
Judicial review under the APA is limited to procedural errors only.

Review grounds include arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion.

Explication

The APA incorporates grounds such as arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion, allowing courts to review agency decisions under these standards. The other options misstate the scope or focus of the APA review process.

8. What is the main focus of EU proportionality review?

Assessing whether measures are suitable, necessary, and balanced.
Determining whether decisions are irrational or absurd.
Verifying compliance with international treaties.
Ensuring decisions favor economic efficiency.

Assessing whether measures are suitable, necessary, and balanced.

Explication

EU proportionality requires measures to be suitable, necessary, and not excessive—balancing effectiveness with rights. The other options misrepresent the core of proportionality review.

9. How do institutional features like specialized courts influence judicial review?

They tend to facilitate more detailed, scientific, and proportionality review.
They decrease the scope of review by limiting cases to political questions.
They make reviews less technical and more political.
They eliminate the need for procedural fairness in administrative decisions.

They tend to facilitate more detailed, scientific, and proportionality review.

Explication

Specialized courts and institutions often enable more detailed and technical review, including scientific and proportionality assessments, compared to general courts.

10. What is a typical consequence when complex scientific assessments are involved in administrative decisions?

Judicial review may focus on scientific reliability and procedural correctness.
Decisions are automatically exempt from review due to expertise.
Courts must defer entirely to agency scientific judgment.
Judicial review is limited to fiscal or political considerations.

Judicial review may focus on scientific reliability and procedural correctness.

Explication

When complex scientific assessments are involved, courts often scrutinize for scientific reliability and procedural fairness, though deference may be given depending on the jurisdiction.

Révisez avec les flashcards

Mémorisez les réponses avec 10 flashcards sur Judicial Review of Administrative Actions.

Judicial review — definition?

Legal oversight of administrative decisions.

Judicial review — assesses?

Legality and reasonableness of decisions

UK standard — Wednesbury?

Decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority could make it.

Voir les flashcards →

Approfondir avec la fiche

Consultez la fiche de révision complète sur Judicial Review of Administrative Actions.

Voir la fiche →

Cours similaires

Organisation et fonctionnement de la justice pénale

Introduction à la procédure pénale

Introduction au droit de la construction

Gestion des Conflits Collectifs

Principes et procédures de la commande publique

Conflits et enjeux en zones maritimes

Crée tes propres QCM

Importe ton cours et l'IA génère des QCM avec corrections en 30 secondes.

Générateur de QCM