Strengthening Administrative
Accountability Through Improved
Administrative Appeals Systems:
Opportunities and Challenges
Some Preliminary Observations from Reform
Initiatives in Latvia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Malcolm Russell-Einhorn
IRIS Center, University of Maryland
The World Bank, June 8, 2004
Overview
 Potential significance of administrative appeals systems
(and administrative procedures generally) to promotion of
‘everyday justice’ and governmental integrity
 The specific purposes served by an effective
administrative appeals (internal review) system
 Use of a questionnaire in Latvia to assess functioning of
various ministries’ appeals systems; additions to such a
questionnaire through work in Bosnia
 Public sector management and political economy
challenges to implementing administrative appeals reform
efforts: picking appropriate targets of opportunity
A sound administrative
procedure system
 Concerned with constraining bureaucratic discretion
 Encompasses procedural rules for initial administrative
decision-making as well as an opportunity to appeal to
administrative body; may also encompass court
review (e.g., everything from tax to pension appeals)
 Through substantive and procedural protections,
‘evens the playing field’ between the state and citizens
 Is concerned with both efficiency and fairness, which
has a potential impact on citizen trust in government
and the investment climate
Recent worldwide attention
paid to administrative
procedure reform
 Major new laws on administrative procedure
passed in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan in the
early 1990s
 Major new codes adopted in past several years
in transition countries, including Latvia,
Estonia, Georgia,
 Coincides with political realignments and
greater contestation; and EU accession efforts
Relative priorities: first-instance
decision-making and deregulation
vs. administrative appeals vs. court
review
 Complementary parts of an integrated system of
administrative justice
 Deregulation and first-instance decision-making
significantly more important
 Significant public sector management
challenges and demand-side usage problems
attend administrative appeals systems
Purposes of an administrative
appeals system
 Provides quick and inexpensive way for public
to challenge administrative decisions without
going to court
 Raises public trust in the administration
 Provides agencies opportunity to use expertise
to check lower instance decision-making for
correctness and consistency
 Clear interpretation of law and procedure
discourages unnecessary second instance and
court appeals by public; and incorrect case
processing by first instance decision-makers
Internal review systems
are generally neglected
 Not accorded as much attention or prestige as court
review as source of substantive legal interpretation
 Second instance decision-makers in ministries or
agencies often under-staffed and under–resourced;
often lack appropriate expertise
 Also sometimes lack sufficient organizational
independence and/or political support by agency
 Hard for agencies and government as a whole to
share information/good practices on internal review
Progress of Administrative
Procedure Reform in Latvia
 Historical antecedents of the new Administrative
Procedure Law (Inter-war period, Soviet period,
1990s)
 Among many reasons for a new law, most crucial
was improving court procedure and enunciating
modern European substantive review principles
 Drafting of new law began in 1999; law enacted in
2001, effective date February 2004
 Implementation grant from World Bank in 2003: five
components, incl. assessment of admin. appeals
Latvia’s new administrative
procedure law (APL)(2004)
 A framework law that provides a ‘floor’ for proper
administrative decision-making
 Features decision-making based on democratic
principles (equality, proportionality, lawful basis),
introduces new court procedural rules
 Also features decision-making informed by
clearer procedural regularity (opportunity to be
heard, to present evidence, to be given reasons
for a decision)
Key obligations of civil
servants under the new APL
 Provide citizens relevant information and obtain
such information from other agencies if necessary
 Clarify and assess arguments of citizens seeking
an administrative decision
 Issue decisions that contain arguments of the
parties and a reasoned justification for the decision
 Give citizens a right to be heard on appeal in a
‘higher institution”
Translating the APL’s
promise into reality
As usual, an ‘implementation gap’ may exist:
 Legal norms need to be harmonized
 Commentaries need to be written
 Internal guidelines and forms need to be
developed
 Civil servants need training
 Public needs information
 Better recordkeeping and monitoring needed
Use of a survey to clarify
APL implementation issues
 Designed to gather information about existing
internal review procedures and plans for
implementing the APL
 Drafted with input from, and administered to,
members of a Prime Minister’s Working Group
 Two separate questionnaires: one for ministries
and one for subordinate institutions
 Basically limited to supply-side concerns
Key topics of the surveys









Types and volume of administrative decisions
Levels and avenues of appeal
Volume of appeals and recordkeeping
Internal processes for handling appeals
Review/monitoring of appeals practices
Training of civil servants
Public information practices
Retrieval of information between agencies
Resource needs for implementation of the law
Survey responses
 15 out of 17 ministries responded (88%)
 83 out of 95 subordinate institutions (87%)
 High response rate can be considered
comprehensive for national-level government
 Survey not administered to municipalities, but
results are suggestive for them as well
Types and volume of
administrative decisions
 Many institutions could not supply full list of
types of administrative decisions they issued
 Information on volume of administrative
decisions was better, but still understated
 Most agencies failed to identify procurement,
freedom of information, or civil service
decisions as decisions
 Failure to fully identify types and volume of
decisions reduces agency ability to comply with
law and ensure good management practices
2001
2002
līdz šim 2003 (līdz Okt.)
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
Zemkopības ministrija
(padotības iestādēm –
kopā)
Satiksmes ministrija
(ministrijai un
padotības iestādēm –
kopā)
Iekšlietu ministrija Ekonomikas ministrija Labklājības ministrija Tieslietu ministrija
Veselības ministrija
(padotības iestādēm – (padotības iestādēm – (padotības iestādēm – (padotības iestādēm – (padotības iestādēm –
kopā)
kopā)
kopā)
kopā)
kopā)
Vides ministrija
Finanšu ministrija
(padotības iestādēm – (padotības iestādēm –
kopā)
kopā)
Levels & avenues of appeal
 Special legal norms often govern avenues of
appeal
 Ideally should have one internal appeal level, but
38 of 83 institutions reported more than one
 Appeals often made to head of a regional or
structural unit, and then to the head of an
institution or to ministry
 For fairness and efficiency, better to focus on
quality of review and limiting number of appeal
instances (avoiding “appeal fatigue”)
Differences of Opinion Re: Avenues
of Appeal
Ministry of Agriculture
1. State Forest Service
2. State Fishery Board
3. Food and Veterinary Service
4. State Plant Protection Service
5. State Breeding Inspectorate
Ministry of Economy
6. Central Statistical Board
7. State Metrology Inspectorate
8. Nonprofit State LLC National
Metrological Center
9. State Electricity Inspectorate
Ministry of Environment
10. Environmental Impact Assessment
Bureau
11. Jelgava Regional Environmental
Board
12. Liepaja Regional Environmental
Board
13. North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve
CURRENT SITUATION
Institution: Ministry: Instances
Appeal to Appeal to
of
the
the
different
supervising supervising interpreministry? Ministry? tation
2
YES
NO
YES
NO
4
AFTER APL ENACTMENT
Institution: Ministry: Instances
Appeal to Appeal to
of
the
the
different
supervising supervising interpreministry? ministry? tation
3
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
2
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
3
NO*
3
YES
YES
NO
NO*
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
Volume & recordkeeping of
appeals
 Few institutions keep statistics on numbers or
outcomes of appeals
 Many institutions that do keep statistics on
appeals have very low figures
 Of those that keep statistics, several have very
high affirmation rates, possibly problematic
 Dearth of statistics prevents analysis, learning,
and improvements in quality of service
Organization and processes
for handling appeals
 Only 16 out of 83 subordinate institutions have
a dedicated unit to handle appeals
 8 had standing appellate commissions with
collegial decision-making
 Dedicated appeals units or boards may be
required where large numbers of appeals are
filed and/or special expertise is needed
Considerations affecting location
& nature of internal appeals units
To ensure quality review, set up appeals units
that have:
 Reviewers with adequate legal and technical
expertise and writing skills
 Reviewers with adequate political support and
resources/salaries
 Functional independence from line agency
personnel
Procedures and guidelines
for handling appeals
 50 institutions reported having no external or
internal guidelines for handling appeals
 Number is probably higher, since only 9
institutions clearly reported having guidelines
 Only 4 institutions reported guidelines
governing substantive review of appeals
 Only 4 institutions reported using checklists of
necessary elements for rendering decisions
Forms and information for
the public on appeals
procedures
 Although many agencies have standardized
forms for issuance of administrative acts, most
relate only to administrative violations cases
 Most forms do not provide clear guidance on
where appeals will be lodged and processed
under the APL
 21 agencies have web sites that explain
something about appeal rights, while 12
institutions have brochures on the subject.
Systemic reviews/monitoring
of appeals practices
 51 out of 83 responding institutions said they
conducted no systemic analyses
 How ‘systemic’ actually are such reviews?
 Value of such reviews: identifying problems in
policy, procedures, practices
 Helpful to periodically survey staff & appellants
 Appeals should be analyzed to identify trends
and rectify recurrent problems
Retrieval of information
between institutions
 APL requires institutions to gather all
information necessary to a decision, rather
than requiring citizens to obtain it. Many don’t.
 82 out of 98 institutions said they will use
letters of request to fulfill this obligation; 54
said they will use access to online government
databases to obtain data;
 44 said they will also use phone calls to track
down needed data
Percentage of Civil Servants (7%) by Ministry
Who Have Received Some APL Training
0%
10%
20%
Zemkopības ministrija
31%
28%
Valsts Kanceleja
Īpašu uzdevumu ministra bērnu un ģimenes lietās sekretariāts
17%
Kultūras ministrija
17%
Vides ministrija
14%
Satiksmes ministrija
11%
Labklājības ministrija
11%
Finanšu ministrija
6%
Ekonomikas ministrija
3%
Iekšlietu ministrija
3%
Īpašu uzdevumu ministra sabiedrības integrācijas lietās sekretariāts
3%
Tieslietu ministrija
0%
Ārlietu ministrija
30%
2%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
As a result of the surveys
 Ministries have better understanding of what
the implementation issues are
 Agencies can advocate more persuasively for
resources and/or legal and regulatory changes
 Individual agencies can engage in prioritysetting as well as joint initiatives (special
norms, training, information exchanges)
 Government as a whole is sensitized to need
for more resources, donor support, and
relationship of APL reform to other public
sector management & legal reforms
Mapping Procedures and
Writing/Publicizing Guidelines to
Eliminate Vagueness & Discretion
CHECKLIST OF KEY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCESS ELEMENTS AND INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS FOR APL IMPLEMEN TATION IN LATVIA
Submission of
an appeal
Using forms
describing
bases for
deicison and
appeal rights
Within 7
days,
appeal
must be
sent to
reviewing
institution
Application
of the amin.
Act
suspended
unless
otherwise
provided for
by special
norms
Recording
of the
appeal in
the higher
institution
Designation
of the
reviewing
unit/officer,
equipped
with
standards of
conduct
Review of
the appeal
using APL
standards
translated
into
internal
guidelines
Preparation
of the
decision on
appeal in
format
prescribed
by APL
Issuance of
decision on
appeal with
notice to
appellant
and
agency
special
•Avenues of appeal; designation of internal review
•Procedures for reviewing appeals, including taking of
evidence and conduct of hearings; publicizing same
•Procedures and forms to document appeals
•Minimum requirements for recordkeeping
Recordkeeping,
auditing,
and
analysis
of
decisions
Additional Diagnostic
Emphases in Bosnia
 USAID project focused on administrative procedural
reform at local and national level
 Intensive internal review work with a few ministries
(strategic planning, training, case management)
 More emphasis in surveys on probing pay,
education, and independence of 2nd instance
decision-makers
 Additional survey emphasis on probing other
reasons for failure to decide appeals on merits
Challenges for administrative
appeals systems reform
 Political economy considerations (sufficient
political contestation; ministry leadership,
corruption dynamics)
 Need for concomitant civil service and other
public sector management reforms
 Need demand-side pressures from civil society,
esp. the media and ombudsman, if any
 Judiciary can also be a source of pressure
Picking the right targets
of opportunity
 Generally best to take a sectoral, ministry-focused
approach based on demonstrated ministry
leadership and a motivated community of system
users
 Better if it’s part of, and complements, a broader
public sector management initiative
 Better if public users of system can be surveyed
or otherwise provide input on procedures