New directions of adminstrative sanctioning and the efficiency

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v3i2.73

Keywords:

administrative sanction, penalty, criminal prosecution, individual administrative sanction, digital services

Abstract

The study examines the current state of the Hungarian sanctioning regime and the EU requirements in the light of the Digital Services Act (DSA) Regulation on the regulation of the digital services market and tries to propose which sanctioning solutions and mechanisms could be effective in the given area. It also considers whether the sanctions law may need to be amended and whether the current framework needs to be revised. In addition, new types of sanctions, which do not yet exist in the Hungarian system, may be considered in the light of some recent trends in irregularities. The latter may include individual or individual sanctions, which are mainly argued in the literature in the context of cartel law. From the point of view of effectiveness, the DSA Regulation sets out certain aspects, but leaves open the question of what sanctions the Member State wishes to introduce into national law in the area in question. Given the parallels between the regulation of the digital services market and antitrust law, the study considers existing sanctions in domestic competition law as a reasonable starting point, with the possibility of introducing new elements based on international practice.

References

Árva Zs. (2021). Közigazgatási szankcionálás COVID idején. Közjavak, 7(2–3), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.21867/KjK/2021.2.1

Árva Zs. (2022). A közösségi együttélés szabályozása és szankcionálása. Demokratikus Helyi Közigazgatás Fejlesztéséért Alapítvány. Online: https://shorturl.at/wBQU4

Balázs I., & Hoffman I. (2022). A közigazgatási hatósági eljárás aktuális kérdései veszélyhelyzet idején. KözigazgatásTudomány, 2(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v2i1.35

de Moor-van Vugt, A. (2012). Administrative sanctions in EU law. Review of European Administrative Law, 5(1), 5–41. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1992922

Európai Közösségek (1992). The Environmental Dimension. Task Force Report on the Environment and the Internal Market, 1992. http://aei.pitt.edu/6016/

Gajduschek Gy. (2008). Rendnek lennie kell. KSZK ROP Programigazgatóság.

Kis N., & Nagy M. (2007). Európai közigazgatási büntetőjog. HVG–Orac.

Markham, J. (2013). The Failure of Corporate Governance Standards and Antitrust Compliance. University of San Francisco Law Research Paper, No. 2013–22., 1–43. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2233664

Nagy M. (2000). A közigazgatási jogi szankciórendszer. Osiris.

Nagy M. (2018). Dogmatikai alibi-megoldások – a közigazgatási szankciós törvényről. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 73(5), 252–259. Online: http://real-j.mtak.hu/11299/20/JK_2018_5.pdf

Nagy M. (2019). A közigazgatás szankciórendszere. In Jakab A., Könczöl, M., Menyhárd A., & Sulyok G. (Szerk.), Internetes Jogtudományi Enciklopédia (Közigazgatási jog rovat, rovatszerkesztő: Balázs I.). Online: http://ijoten.hu/szocikk/a-kozigazgatas-szankciorendszere

OECD. (2005). Cartels: Sanctions Against Individuals. DAF/COMP(2004)39. Online: https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP(2004)39/en/pdf

Whelan, P. (2022). Reforming the European Commission’s enforcement of cartel Law the Case for individual administrative sanctions. CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 8. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4201443

Published

2023-12-12

How to Cite

New directions of adminstrative sanctioning and the efficiency. (2023). KözigazgatásTudomány (AdministrativeScience), 3(2), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.54200/kt.v3i2.73