Legal Remedy in the Multi-Level Administration: Composite Administrative Procedures and the Impact of Digitalization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v6i1.107Keywords:
composite administrative procedure, multi-level administration, legal remedy, digitalizationAbstract
This article examines the rule of law and legal remedy challenges posed by composite administrative procedures within the European administrative space. In these multi-level procedures, the implementation of European Union law is carried out through the cooperation of direct and indirect administration, which enhances administrative efficiency while simultaneously fragmenting decision-making processes and responsibility structures. Adopting a theoretical and dogmatic approach, the article analyses the concept, typology and constitutional embeddedness of composite procedures, as well as the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union from the perspective of judicial review. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of digitalization, which, by becoming a structuring factor of administrative cooperation, further intensifies existing tensions in judicial protection. The article argues that composite administrative procedures – especially in a digitalized environment – can only be reconciled with the requirements of the rule of law if supported by coherent normative frameworks and strengthened mechanisms of judicial protection.
References
Balázs I. (2015). Az európai közigazgatási jog és közigazgatás értelmezéséről. In Gerencsér B., Berkes L., & Varga Zs. A. (Szerk.), A hazai és az uniós közigazgatási eljárásjog aktuális kérdései (pp. 13–29). Pázmány Press. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/31808
Balázs I. (2016). Európai integráció – magyar közigazgatás, egykor és most. Lőrincz Lajos korabeli vízióinak szembesítése napjaink folyamataival. Pro Publico Bono – Magyar Közigazgatás, 4(3), 56–69. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/51352
Balázs I. (2019). A magyar közigazgatás az „európai közigazgatási térségben”. Pro Publico Bono – Magyar Közigazgatás, 7(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.32575/ppb.2019.1.4
Balázs I. (2020a). Európai közigazgatási térség. In Jakab A., Könczöl M., Menyhárd A., & Sulyok G. (Szerk.), Internetes Jogtudományi Enciklopédia. Online: http://ijoten.hu/szocikk/europai-kozigazgatasi-terseg
Balázs I. (2020b). Az Európai Közigazgatási Tér és az európai közigazgatási jog. In Lapsánszky A. (Szerk.), Közigazgatási jog. Szakigazgatásaink elmélete és működése (pp. 70–90). Wolters Kluwer. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/118787
Balogh-Békési N., Balázs I., & Boros A. I. (2017). Általános rendelkezések. Pro Publico Bono – Magyar Közigazgatás, 2017(2. különszám), 20–67. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/92364
Benjamin, J. (2023). Safeguarding the Right to an Effective Remedy in Algorithmic Multi-Governance Systems: An Inquiry in Artificial Intelligence-Powered Informational Cooperation in the EU Administrative Space. Review of European Administrative Law, 16(2), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479823X16878510945034
Benvenisti, E., & Downs, G. W. (2014). The premises, assumptions, and implications of Van Gend en Loos: Viewed from the perspectives of democracy and legitimacy of international institutions. European Journal of International Law, 25(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/cht084
Bicskei, T. (2023). A mesterséges intelligencia közigazgatásban való felhasználásával okozott kár. KözigazgatásTudomány, 3(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v3i1.51
Boros A. (2018). A közigazgatási eljárás az Európai Unióban. In Jakab A., & Fekete B. (Szerk.), Internetes Jogtudományi Enciklopédia. Online: https://ijoten.hu/szocikk/a-kozigazgatasi-eljarasjog-az-europai-unioban
Brito Bastos, F. (2020). An administrative crack in the EU’s rule of law: Composite decision-making and nonjusticiable national law. European Constitutional Law Review, 16(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019620000073
Brożek, B., Furman, M., Jakubiec, M., & Kucharzyk, B. (2024). The black box problem revisited. Real and imaginary challenges for automated legal decision making. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32, 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09356-9
Budinská, B. (2019). Judicial Review of Revocation Decisions in The Context of European Banking Supervision. Review of European Administrative Law, 12(1), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819X15656877527241
della Cananea, G. (2004). The European Union’s Mixed Administrative Proceedings. Law and Contemporary Problems, 68(Winter), 197–217. Online: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol68/iss1/10
Campos Sánchez-Bordona, M. (2018). Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona in Silvio Berlusconi and Fininvest SpA v Banca d’Italia and IVASS (Case C-219/17), ECLI:EU:C:2018:502
Chevallier-Govers, C. (2021). Article 67 [Establishing the AFSJ]. In H. J. Blanke, & S. Mangiameli (Szerk.), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: A commentary (pp. 1329–1376). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_68
Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. (2020). Reviewable Automated Decision-Making. Computer Law & Security Review, 39, 105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105475
Craig, P., Hofmann, H., Schneider, J-P., & Ziller, J. (Szerk.) (2017). ReNEUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure. Oxford University Press.
Csatlós E. (2016). Az európai közigazgatási eljárási jog kodifikációja és a hatóságok együttműködése. Eljárásjogi Szemle, 1(2), 14–23. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/168125
Csatlós E. (2024a). Blending digitalization and enhanced security: Exploring the role of ETIAS in migration control and its administrative structure. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 65(3), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2024.00508
Csatlós E. (2024b). Jog vs. technológia: az ETIAS és a migráció szűrése. Scientia et Securitas, 5(4), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1556/112.2025.00244
Csatlós E. (2025). European administration: the basic principles governing the administration of the European Union. Iurisperitus. Online: https://eta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/6064
Daly, P., Raso, J., & Tomlinson, J. (2023). Administrative law in the digital world. In C. Harlow (Szerk.), A Research Agenda for Administrative Law (pp. 255–279). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800883765.00017
Deviatnikovaitė, I. (2018). EU Administrative Law: What are EU-Level Public Administrators?. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 59(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2018.59.1.2
Eckes, C., & D’Ambrosio, R. (2020). Composite administrative procedures in the European Union. ECB Legal Working Paper Series No. 20. European Central Bank. https://doi.org/10.2866/08772
Eliantonio, M. (2014). Judicial Review in an Integrated Administration: the Case of ‘Composite Procedures’. Review of European Administrative Law, 7(2), 65–102. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479814X14186465138022
Európai Bizottság. (2023). The Internal Market Information (IMI) System. 15 years of connecting public administrations across the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2873/914815
Galetta, D.-U. (2010). Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States: Paradise lost? A Study on the “Functionalized Procedural Competence” of EU Member States. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12547-8
Galetta, D.-U. (2019). Public Administration in the Era of Database and Information Exchange Networks: Empowering Administrative Power or Just Better Serving the Citizens?. European Public Law, 25(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2019012
Garben, S. (2019). Competence Creep Revisited. Journal of Common Market Studies. 57(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12643
Gombos K. (2019). Tagállami eljárási autonómia – az elv korlátokkal és kérdőjelekkel. Európai Tükör, 3(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.32559/et.2019.3.3
Halberstam, D. (2021). Understanding National Remedies and the Principle of National Procedural Autonomy: A Constitutional Approach. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 23, 128–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2021.12
Hamid, A. M. A. (2025). Administrative Liability for Damages Caused by Artificial Intelligence Systems in Public Services: An Analytical Study in Light of the Principles of Legality and Transparency. Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(4), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20251304.21
Harlow, C., & Rawlings, R. (2014). Process and Procedure in EU Administration. Hart Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201087
Hofmann, H. C. H., & Türk, A. (2007). The Development of Integrated Administration in the EU and its Consequences. European Law Journal, 13, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00355.x
Ibáñez, A. J. G. (2000). A közösségi jog ellenőrzése és végrehajtása: A nemzeti és az európai közigazgatások szerepe. Osiris Kiadó.
Jančová, L., Fernandes, M., & Meuwese, A. (2022). Digitalisation and Administrative Law. European Added Value Assessment. European Parliament.
Kastanas I., & Pavlidis G. (2025). Algorithmic Administration and the EU AI Act: Legal Principles for Public Sector Use of AI. Journal of Ethics and Legal Technologies, 7(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.25430/pupj-JELT-2025-2-3
Kazim, T., & Tomlinson, J. (2023). Automation Bias and the Principles of Judicial Review. Judicial Review, 28(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2189405
Kostakopoulou, D. (2020). The Appeal to Tampere’s Politics of Consciousness for the EU’s AFSJ. In S. Carrera, D. Curtin, & A. Geddes (Szerk.), 20 Year Anniversary of the Tampere Programme: Europeanisation dynamics of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (pp. 19–26). European University Institute. https://doi.org/10.2870/66646
Lafarge, F. (2024). Is Administrative Cooperation Between EU Member States the “Dark Matter” of the European Administrative Space? A Legal Perspective on the Implementation of EU Free Circulation Policies. In D. Georgakakis (Szerk.), The Changing Topography of EU Administration: Organisations, Actors, and Policy Processes (pp. 139–157). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64695-9_7
Lazarotto, B. (2025). The Role of Technology in Citizens’ Right to Good Administration: Examining the Impact of Smart Governments. In J. Goossens, E. Keymolen, & A. Stanojević (Szerk.), Public Governance and Emerging Technologies. Values, Trust, and Regulatory Compliance (pp. 43–59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84748-6_3
Lenschow, A. (2006). Europeanisation of Public Policy. In J. Richardson (Szerk.), European Union: Power and policy-making (pp. 56–70). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203004449
Lonardo, L. (2022). The Authority of Administrative Law: Its Implications for EU Integration in the Enforcement of Composite Procedures. Jean Monnet Network on EU Law Enforcement Working Paper Series No. 38/22. Online: https://tinyurl.hu/7uxZ
Lottini, M. (2014). An Instrument of Intensified Informal Mutual Assistance: The Internal Market Information System (IMI) and the Protection of Personal Data. European Public Law, 20(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2014009
Mazzotti, P., & Eliantonio, M. (2020). Transnational Judicial Review in Horizontal Composite Procedures: Berlioz, Donnellan, and the Constitutional Law of the Union. European Papers, 5(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/373
Monar, J. (2012). Justice and Home Affairs: The Treaty of Maastricht as a Decisive Intergovernmental Gate Opener. Journal of European Integration, 34(7), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.726011
Monar, J. (2014). The EU’s growing external role in the AFSJ domain: Factors, framework and forms of action. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27(1), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2012.710586
Musco Eklund, A. (2023). Rule of Law Challenges of ‘Algorithmic Discretion’ & Automation in EU Border Control. A Case Study of ETIAS Through the Lens of Legality. European Journal of Migration and Law, 25, 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340152
Negruț, V., & Zorzoană, I. A. (2023). Application of the loyal cooperation principle in public administration. Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 16(1), 431–437. Online: https://tinyurl.hu/2xpw
OECD. (2023). The Principles of Public Administration. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/7f5ec453-en
Oller Rubert, M., & García Macho, R. (2021). Article 74 [Administrative Cooperation]. In H. J. Blanke, & S. Mangiameli (Szerk.), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: A commentary (pp. 1417–1425). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43511-0_75
Onţanu, E. A. (2023). The Digitalisation of European Union Procedures: A New Impetus Following a Time of Prolonged Crisis. Law, Technology and Humans, 5(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2706
Patyi A., Pollák K., & Fekete O. (2025a). A mesterséges intelligencia alkalmazásának egyes adatvédelmi kihívásai a közigazgatási hatósági eljárásokban. Jog – Állam – Politika, 17(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.58528/JAP.2025.17-2.7
Patyi A., Pollák K., & Fekete O. (2025b). A mesterséges intelligencia alkalmazásának néhány alapkérdése a közigazgatási eljárásjog szemszögéből. Jog – Állam – Politika, 17(2), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.58528/JAP.2025.17-1.3
Pflücke, F. (2024). Interoperability in the EU: Paving the Way for Digital Public Services. In H. C. H. Hofmann, & F. Pflücke (Szerk.), Governance of Automated Decision-Making and EU Law (pp. 265–288). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198919575.003.0010
Roeben, V. (2020). Judicial Protection as the Meta-norm in the EU Judicial Architecture. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12, 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00085-3
Rozsnyai K. (2013). A hatékony jogvédelem biztosítása a közigazgatási bíráskodásban. Acta Humana, 1(1), 117–130. Online: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/122844
Röttger-Wirtz, S., & Eliantonio, M. (2019). From Integration to Exclusion: EU Composite Administration and Gaps in Judicial Accountability in the Authorisation of Pharmaceuticals. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 10(2), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2019.32
Siket J. (2017). Legal Protection Rules of New Administrative Procedure. In Csatlós E. (Szerk.), Recent Challenges of Public Administration: Papers presented at the conference of ‘Contemporary Issues of Public Administration’ on 26th April 2017 (pp. 33–44). Iurisperitus. Online: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/69030
Soós E. (2011). A Vajdaság útja az európai integrációba a Vajdaság AT Statútumának tükrében. Közép-Európai Közlemények, 4(3–4), 145–155. Online: https://real-j.mtak.hu/29241
Torma A. (2011). Az Európai Közigazgatási Térségről – magyar szemmel. Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 6(különszám), 196–210. Online: https://www.mjsz.uni-miskolc.hu/2011k
Türk, A. H. (2025). Judicial Review in the European Union. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783478590
Váradi Sz. (2024). Adatvédelem a mesterséges intelligencia korában. Wolters Kluwer. Online: http://publicatio.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/35754
Vörös E. H. (2025). Hogyan hat a digitalizáció a közigazgatásra? Eltérő technológiai szintek áttekintése és lehetséges közigazgatás-fejlesztési irány a digitalizáció korában. Közjogi Szemle, 18(3), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.59851/KJSZ.2025.3.05
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887. Online: https://tinyurl.hu/lU4t
Wall, G. (2016). Linked National Public Authorities – a Study on IMI. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Report No. 11. Online: https://sieps.se/media/zwcbpmaw/linked-national-public-authorities-a-study-on-imi-2016_11.pdf
Wilbrandt-Gotowicz, M. (2023). Judicial Control in Integrated Composite Administrative Proceedings – Monism or Duality of Protection of Individual Rights? Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 32(1), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.1.293-319
