Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (205) (remove)
Language
- English (205) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (205)
Keywords
- Europäische Union (3)
- Covid-19 (2)
- Public Administration (2)
- higher education (2)
- ACCC (1)
- Aarhus convention (1)
- Aarhus regulation (1)
- Abgeordneter (1)
- Anonymity Assessment (1)
- Artt. 290 & 291 AEUV (1)
- Beitritt (1)
- Bildung (1)
- Binnenmarkt (1)
- Bureaucracy (1)
- Challenges for the digital transformation of public administration in Germany (1)
- Crisis Governance (1)
- Cultural Dimensions (1)
- Deutschland / Bundestag (1)
- ECHR (1)
- EMRK (1)
- EU-Accession (1)
- EU-Beitritt (1)
- Empfehlung (1)
- European Integration (1)
- Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (1)
- Europäische Union / Parlament (1)
- Facebook (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Fundamental Rights (1)
- Germany (1)
- Globalization (1)
- Good Administration (1)
- Hinkley Point C (1)
- Immigration policy (1)
- Internationalization (1)
- Judical protection (1)
- Jugendschutz (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Leitlinie (1)
- Middle East and North Africa (1)
- Multi-level governance (1)
- National Innovation Systems (1)
- OMK (1)
- Parteienfinanzierung (1)
- Public Private Partnerships (1)
- Refugee crisis (1)
- Rule of law (1)
- Rundfunkübertragung (1)
- Tool for Measuring Anonymity (1)
- Umsetzung (1)
- Zollunion (1)
- Zuständigkeit (1)
- automated decision-making (1)
- automatisierte Entscheidungen (1)
- digital transformation (1)
- digitalization (1)
- digitization (1)
- federalism (1)
- fundamental rights (1)
- hospitalization (1)
- hospitization (1)
- intention to use (1)
- internal review (1)
- legal decision-making (1)
- management (1)
- rule of law (1)
- social media (1)
- structural equation modeling (1)
- technology acceptance model (1)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (35)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (27)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (19)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (13)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (10)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (8)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (5)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Finanz- und Steuerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Joachim Wieland) (3)
The contribution investigates the impact of COVID-19 on long overdue reforms of German healthcare. The pandemic revealed some major shortcomings in patient care and elicited calls for new legislative solutions, more effective use of resources and a reduction of hospital expenditure.
The proposals discussed here clash with the “stability” which is a major feature of the German legal system.
PURPOSE: The management of cross-border natural resources has been the focus of re-search in different disciplines. Nonetheless, beyond theoretical insights, empirical evidence of successful cross-border management or governance of natural resources is still limited, even in the European Union (EU), where a range of instruments are provided to foster cross-border cooperation between its Member States. This is where our paper departs, providing evidence from an example of cross-border cooperation between two Member States of the EU, Austria, and Slovenia, adding to the analytical framework to identify the drivers of successful cross-border cooperation.
METHODOLOGY: Drawing from the example of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) Geopark Karawanken we evaluate the success factors and limits for transboundary cooperation encompassing different forms of cooperation. Furthermore, based on empirical evidence of workshops with local, regional, and national stakeholders, we investigate the potential of the EGTC organizational framework to provide for the successful cross-border management of water resources within the Geopark area.
The links between innovativeness as a driver of economic performance, and the determi-nants of innovativeness have been investigated by management scholars and economists
for decades, focusing mostly on “hard factors” as investment in research and development, or education. Focusing on a relatively neglected, but in times of globalization even more important aspect, the influence of cultural characteristics on innovativeness, we apply different econometric models to test for links between cultural tightness and looseness on the one hand, and national innovativeness on the other hand. We find that cultural tightness — in the sense of homogenous and intolerant societies — has a negative link to national innovativeness, while cultural looseness — in the sense of tolerant and diverse societies — displays a positive link to national innovativeness.
Trade relations face unprecedented challenges, which has led to an increased politicisation and contestation of trade rules. In response, the EU has changed its trade policy under the motto ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ towards a more as-sertive policy. The EU seeks to signifi-cantly expand its room of manoeuvre and to gain more autonomy by strengthening the en-forcement of its trade rights and by ensuring more effectively, including unilaterally, a level playing field. This re-orientation engenders several new or amended trade policy instru-ments, but meets with reservations as the renewed politicisation of EU trade policy will have internal consequences and raise demands for more democratic accountability of the Euro-pean Commission. The new policy instruments will enlarge its leeway in trade policy. The future of the EU's multilateral, rule- instead of power-oriented political stance becomes unclear, which might undermine its negotiation posi-tion in WTO reform and collide with the EU's respect for international law. The tensions of the EU's new hybrid approach with its international commitments even more fuel demands for increased accountability of the Commission as a safeguard against employing the new powers for protectionism and disrespect to international law. The contribution analyses the need for increased Commis-sion accountability in the redirected trade policy.
Europeanisation situates local governments in a constantly changing environment, bringing challenges, opportunities, and constraints. These circumstances raise the question, how
local authorities adapt to the process of European integration, face its challenges, and use
its diverse opportunity structures. The article explores four dimensions, through which Europeanisation hits the ground of local government: downloading, uploading, dissemi-nation, and horizontal networking. It examines the distribution of different types of Europe-related activities at the local level using data from a survey sent to all 396 independent cities, towns, and municipalities in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Our empirical analysis provides an overview of the most and least frequent Europe-related activities within the different types of local authorities. The findings of our multivariate analysis shows that next to the direct affectedness by Europeanisation, the municipalities’ capacities in terms of financial and institutional resources have a major influence on their efforts towards Europe.
This introductory article makes the case for studying joint institutional frameworks (JIFs) in EU bilateral agreements and provides an overview of the remaining contributions to the sympo-sium. In doing so, it addresses contemporary policy developments and theoretical debates in political science and international institutional law. It considers the rationale, design, perfor-mance as well as legitimacy of JIFs both in general and, in particular, in the EU's contractual bilateral relations. By mapping out the variety of JIFs in distinct geographical and regulatory contexts, the article develops an overarching argument about the ‘transversal’ nature of such structural frameworks, focusing on the most prevalent structural principles and rules, joint bodies and special procedures, including those not covered in detail in the other contribu-tions to this symposium.
The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously.
Ex Officio Third Country Subsidies' Review: Similarities with and Differences to State Aid Procedure
(2022)
In May 2021 the European Commission tabled a draft Third Country Subsidies Regulation which stands between trade and competition policy. This new instrument establishes a review of third country subsidies with a view to addressing the competition distortion resulting from foreign subsidies granted to undertakings economically active in the EU internal market. As the new tool complements EU State aid scrutiny with a view to foreign subsidies, the present contribution compares the general procedures and provisions of the new regulation with EU State aid law. It will be shown that despite many similarities with State aid law, considerable differences remain which can be explained by looking at the different procedural and substantive context.
This article takes the proliferation of EU soft law instruments in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to analyse their effects and challenges to democracy and rule of law in the EU posed by the use of EU soft law in the implementation of EU law. A proposal will be made for a general legal framework on the adoption of administrative EU soft law in order to address them. Enhancing the legitimacy of EU governance requires a general legal framework that introduces minimum procedural, transparency and participa-tory safeguards and foresees looser rules for urgent soft measures. The article thus makes an original contribution by reconsidering the debate about EU soft law in the context of COVID-19 soft law with a view to its salience for domestic implementation of EU law and by developing core elements of a general legal framework.
The Union legislator has recently amended the Aarhus Regulation with the aim of bringing it more in line with the requirements the Aarhus Convention lays down. EU State aid decisions, however, remain excluded from its scope. This exclusion raises questions that form the object of this contribution. The article argues that the arguments presented to justify the continued exclusion of State aid review are not convincing. By not complying with the re-commendations of the ACCC, the EU is in clear violation of international law. Therefore, the article deliberates over the necessary changes and possible exemptions for a sound im-plementation of the Aarhus Convention against the procedural specificities of State aid review, considering also the Commission´s recently presented options, which contain a number of problematic aspects.
A digital public administration is crucial for providing citizens (especially in times of crisis) with effective access to administrative services. Political leaders in Germany agreed on this principle during the global COVID-19 pandemic. However, the implementation of the Online Access Act - the main German law on administrative digitalisation - and of the Single Digital Gateway Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 has raised considerable (legal) problems. This article therefore not only looks at the current implementation status of the two pieces of legislation, but in particular identifies three challenges for the digital transformation of public adminis-tration in Germany: federalism, legal fragmentation and register modernisation.
This contribution investigates the German response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis highlights the measures taken by the German government in cooperation with subnational units to mitigate the spread of infections, as well as the efforts made to stem the economic consequences of the containment measures. The emergency situation turned out to be a real stress test for the German legal system, and a serious challenge for democratic institutions
Health data are sensitive data and must therefore be protected from unauthorised access. However, exchanging individual patient information is crucial for coordinating treatment between different medical professions and for the statutory health insurance schemes. Digitalisation of health data will facilitate all these processes. To promote EU-wide mobility of patients, the European Commission has proposed the establishment of a European Health Data Space. It is intended to trigger technological development in the member states, given that to date digitalisation has been used to different extents throughout the union. It is not guaranteed that patients in all member states will have access to their health data and thus be able to receive treatment or fill prescriptions within the single market. At the same time, the common experiences in the SARS-CoV2-pandemic made clear that there is a vital need for using patient data as a tool for monitoring health threats and for improving the coordination of both preparedness and response measures in times of health crisis.
Proportionality in English Administrative Law: Resistance and Strategy in Relational Dynamics
(2021)
Proportionality is at the centre of heated debates in English administrative law. It has been adopted for matters pertaining to European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, but its use in other areas parts of English administrative law is highly contentious. While some arguments in favour or against applying proportionality in England are similar to those exchanged in relation to other legal systems (such as tensions between increased objectivity in judicial control over administrative action vs. the desirability of more limited control), other arguments are more specific to English administrative law. To understand the challenges encountered by proportionality in English administrative law, this paper adopts a contextual analysis, putting the emphasis on the relational dynamics framing the interactions between the main actors involved in the proportionality test. Paradoxically, this perspective rehabilitates the analysis of the legal techniques behind transplants such as proportionality: indeed, transplants are vehicles for legal changes in ways that go beyond the circulation of ideas across the world. Instead of being merely superficial and rhetorical, transplants engage deeply with the whole gamut of institutions and actors in a legal system, calling on them to rearticulate their implied and explicit relationships.
The Covid-19 pandemic is a multi-faceted crisis that challenges not only the health systems and other policy sub-systems in the single Member States, but also the European Union’s ability to provide policy responses that address the transnational nature of pandemic control as a union-wide ‘public good’ that affects health and social policies, border control and security as well as topics related to the single market. Thus, the pandemic constitutes a veritable capacity test for the EU integration project.
This article attempts to take stock of the Union’s early reaction to the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak. After an introduction and a short note on the scope and methodology of the analysis a theoretical framework is developed. Scrutinising the pertinent literature on crisis management, we reflect the traditional hypothesis that in times of crisis the centre becomes more relevant against the background of the EU crisis management system, and discuss the role of informality in particular during the time of crisis. Against this backdrop, empirical evidence from interviews with EU officials and documents in selected policy fields (health and emergency management, digitalisation, and economic recovery) are analysed, before a discussion and conclusion complete the study.
Electoral disinformation has become one of the most challenging problems for democratic states. All of them are facing the phenomenon of - both online and offline - dissemination of false information during pre-electoral period, which is harmful for individual and collective rights. As a consequence, some European countries adopted special measures, including summary judicial proceedings in order to declare that information or materials used in elec-tioneering are false and to prohibit its further dissemination. There are already three rulings of the ECtHR concerning this expeditious judicial examination provided in the Polish law. In December 2018 France passed complex regulation against manipulation of information that include similar mechanisms. This article, basing on the ECtHR’s case law and some national experiences, attempts to define the minimal European standard for measures targeted at electoral disinformation, especially judicial summary proceeding. It contains the analysis of the notion of electoral disinformation, defines the state’s positive obligations in this sphere, and indicates mayor challenges for the legal framework. The principal argument is that summary judicial proceedings – if adequately designed – cannot be questioned from the Convention standpoint and provide a partial solution to the problem of electoral dis-information.
The history of German public procurement law is a history of attempts by the German legislator to implement the EU public procurement directives on judicial protection, namely Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, as minimally as possible. Paradoxically, the history of German procurement law is also the history of an increased spreading of the model of judicial review in ‘competitive award procedures’ underlying Directive 89/665/EEC
to other administrative procedures.
Here, one can discern mutual fertilization of the discussions on the minimal standards for judicial protection foreseen in Directive 89/665/EEC, as well as a parallel discussion on mini-mal standards (directly derived from the German constitution) for judicial review in competi-tive award procedures concerning the recruitment of public officials.
On this basis, one may discern trends in German case law, administrative practice, and scho-larship towards developing judicial review systems in competitive award procedures for pub-lic procurement beyond the thresholds set by the EU directives. This is relevant for privati-zations, gambling licences, and procedures to grant the right to use public spaces, to name only a few. However, these trends encounter difficulties because the German General Administrative Court Procedure Act and other relevant legislation are not tailored to com-petitive award procedures. This article will analyse these different trends and suggest explanations for them.
This article asks how and why United Nations organizations reform their administrative structure and processes over time. It explores whether we can observe a convergence towards a coherent administrative model in the United Nations system. Like in most nation states, reform discussions according to models like New Public Management or post-New Public Management have permeated international public administrations. Against this background, the question of administrative convergence discussed for national administra-tive systems also arises for United Nations international public administrations. On the one hand, similar challenges, common reform ‘fashions’ and an increasing exchange within the United Nations system make convergence likely. Yet, on the other hand, distinct tasks, administrative styles and path dependencies might support divergent reform trajectories. This question of convergence is addressed by measuring the frequency, direction and rationales for reforms, using a sample of four international public administrations from the United Nations’ specialized agencies (the Food and Agriculture Organization, International Labour Organization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank). We find that conver-gence depends on the area of reform (human resources or organizational matters are more harmonized than others) and time (some international public administrations are faster or earlier than others).
From a democratic perspective, the replacement of government or parliament by a public manager to enforce budget discipline marks a serious intervention. Transferred to the local level, the replacement of the mayor and the council in three German municipalities by a state official (a so-called state commissioner) in recent years has raised questions about the legi-timacy and adequacy of such a strong interventionist instrument. One crucial answer to be given to this legitimacy issue concerns effectiveness, in other words whether the instrument can fulfill its designated task by improving the local fiscal situation since the fiscal success of the commissioner is a basic prerequisite for legitimacy. By using a time-series approach of the synthetic control method (SCM) and constructing a synthetic comparison case to the town of Altena, an answer regarding the commissioner’s potential to reduce the short-term debt can be given. The commissioner was successful in limiting the debt increase and seems to have reversed the debt trend. This finding supports the effectiveness of rather hierarchical instruments for ensuring fiscal discipline at the local level and thereby adds to broadening the international public management literature on municipal takeovers.
As WTO members increasingly invoke security exceptions and the first panel report insofar was issued in Russia-Traffic in Transit, the methodical and procedural preliminaries of their adjudication must be reassessed. The preliminaries pertain to justiciability and to the proper interpretive approach for their vague terms that seemingly imply considerable discretion to WTO members, all the more as general exceptions are subject to expansive interpretation. Reading security exceptions expansively appears not viable as they miss the usual safeguard against abuse (i.e. the chapeau of Arts XX GATT/XIV GATS). This lack of safeguards rather suggests caution in conceptualising them expansively, as do the systemic consequences of recent attempts to re-politicise security exceptions which run the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether. Furthermore, the appropriate standards of review and proof must be explored which have to strike a balance between control and deference in national security.
Considering the new focus of the European Union (EU) trade policy on strengthening the enforcement of trade rules, the article presents the proposed amendments to the EU Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. It analyzes the EU Commission proposal and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA), in particular with regard to uncooperative third parties and the provision of immediate countermeasures. The amendments will be assessed in view of their legality under World Trade Organization (WTO), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and general international law and in view of their political implications for the EU’s multilateralist stance. Finally, the opportunity to amend Regulation 654/2014 to use it for the enforcement of FTA trade and sustainable development chapters will be explored. The analysis shows that the shift towards more effective enforcement should be pursued with due care for respecting existing international legal commitments and with more caution to multilateralism.
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka’s The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decisionmaking and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque.
First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
This article conceptualizes the vulnerability of the different stages of Public-Private Partner-ship (PPP) models for corruption against the backdrop of contract theory, principal-agent theory and transaction cost economics, and discusses potential control mechanisms.
The article’s contribution to the debate on PPPs is twofold: first, an issue widely neglected by the pertinent literature is conceptualized. Second, as these PPPs are used not only in de-veloped countries whose legal order may shield them sufficiently, but also in developing countries, carving out the vulnerable points in PPP arrangements may enable decision mak-ers to install appropriate control mechanisms, if need be on project level.
The number of public–private partnerships (PPP) is on the rise. The authors analyse empirical evidence (including outcomes from interviews and a survey of civil servants in Germany), about the importance of transaction costs and trust in PPP implementation and perfor-mance. The paper makes an important contribution to the literature by reflecting on trust relations in PPPs, as well as providing empirical evidence for higher transaction costs in PPPs, compared to entirely public sector provision.
The Covid-19 pandemic affects societies worldwide, challenging not only health sectors but also public administration systems in general. Understanding why public administrations perform well in the current situation—and in times of crisis more generally—is theoretically of great importance; and identifying concrete factors driving successful administrative performance under today‘s extraordinary circumstances could still improve current crisis responses.
This article studies patterns of sound administrative performance with a focus on networks and knowledge management within and between crises. Subsequently, it draws on empirical evidence from two recent public administration surveys conducted in Germany in order to test derived hypotheses. The results of tests for group differences and regression analyses demonstrate that administrations that were structurally prepared, learned during preceding crises, and that displayed a high quality in their network cooperation with other administrations and with the civil society, on average, performed significantly better in the respective crises.
This paper asks which legal tools digital operators could use to manage colliding rights on their platforms in a digitalised and transnational space such as the Internet. This space can be understood as a “modern public square”, bringing together actions in the digitalised world and their interactions with actual events in the physical world. It is then useful to provide this space with a discursive framework allowing for discussing and contesting actions happening on it. In particular, this paper suggests that two well-known legal concepts, proportionality and sanctions, can be helpfully articulated within that discursive framework. In a first step, proportionality, a justificatory tool, is often used to suggest a way for managing colliding rights. This paper argues that for proportionality to be useful in managing colliding rights on digital platforms, its role, scope and limits need to be better framed and supplemented by an overall digital environment which can feed into the proportionality test in an appropriate way. This can be provided, thanks to a second step, namely labelling in law the actions digital operators take as sanctions. Sanctions are the reactions organised by digital operators to bring back social order on the platforms. The labelling of these reactions under the legal category of “sanctions” offers a meaningful tool for thinking about what digital operators do when they manage colliding rights by blocking or withdrawing contents and/or accounts. As different types of sanctions can be distinguished, differentiated legal consequences, especially in relation to managing colliding rights, can be identified. Here the role played by the proportionality test can be distinguished depending on the type of sanctions.
In any case, for sanctions and proportionality to help address colliding rights on the modern public square, a discursive framework needs to be developed, which depends on the existence of relevant meaningful communities engaging in reflecting on the use of sanctions and proportionality.
From a comparative perspective the Covid-19 pandemic provides a unique grand-scale life experience: nearly all countries have been confronted with a similar issue, that of quickly fighting the pandemic, balancing individual health with the sustainability of the national health system, and juggling economic imperatives with the duty to care for the most vulnerable individuals in society. Access and use of data are key to this difficult balancing exercise. One question arises: is the Covid-19 pandemic conducive to developing shared legal strategies or does it reinforce cultural legal features when it comes to data protection?
Blogdroiteuropeen asked experts in data protection to reflect on key developments in their national systems. No definitive answer is possible as Covid-19 is not over yet. However, this preliminary information leads to the identification of six trends underlying the Covid-19 crisis and its impact on data protection. First, all countries were not equal before the pandemic due to differences in their factual and legal backgrounds. Secondly, constitutional techniques proved resilient to a large extent in general and in particular when it comes to data protection. Thirdly, the effectiveness of data protection legislation is connected to its embeddedness in the wider legal context. Fourthly, tracking the spread of Covid-19 through tracing apps may turn out to be a unicorn defeated by data protection even though different technologies have been attempted. Fifthly, aggregation of data or collective harvesting of data in some form has been implemented to very different extents, provided some data protection requirements are met. This leads to the final trend: the ever more articulated pressure on the European Union to decide how far it wants to reclaim its digital sovereignty, and what this would entail concretely. As legal systems may have to cope with the long-term consequences of Covid-19 all over the world it may be useful to take stock of these emerging trends before designing any grand scheme for post-Covid-19 society.
The Council of Europe (CoE) has a long-standing record of promoting standards of good administration in the European legal space. Today, these standards encapsulate the entire range of general organisational, procedural and substantive legal institutions meant to ensure a democratically legitimised, open and transparent administration respecting the rule of law. Therefore, these standards are about the ‘limiting function’ of administrative law, that is, its function to protect individuals from arbitrary power, to legitimise administrative action and to combat corruption and nepotism and other ‘diseases’ with which even a democratic polity willing to be governed by the rule of law may be infected. These CoE standards can be described as ‘pan-European principles of good administration.
Social media platforms are increasingly used in the public administration context. Against this background, this study not only derives and tests the impact of determinants that explain citizens’ intention to use social media channels of public services, but also examines to what extent their intention to use influences their intention to recommend these services to others (word of mouth). An expanded technology acceptance model (TAM) was tested based on data from a survey of 164 citizens. The model provides insight into the creation of social media applications of public authorities, for example, by providing four determinants that significantly influence citizens’ intention to use Facebook pages of public institutions as well as their intention to recommend the page to other citizens.