Summary

It is necessary to distinguish between administrative acts and legislation containing legal norms or legislation of general application from the perspective of constitutional law, administrative law and administrative procedural law for two main reasons. First, this is important for the protection of the rights of persons. For example, if a person believes that the person’s rights have been violated, the person may either challenge an administrative act in a challenge proceeding or may file an action in an administrative court. As a rule, a person cannot challenge legislation of general application, such as a regulation, in court. The ability to distinguish between administrative acts and legislation of general application also helps to prevent abuses of form on the part of legislators.

Distinguishing between general orders and legislation of general application has been problematic in practice. The Administrative Law Chamber of the Supreme Court has admitted in a number of judgments that distinguishing between legislation of specific and general application may be problematic under valid law and administrative practice, and that there is no clear distinction between legislation of general and specific application. The definition of traditional administrative acts and general orders has also been difficult.

In this article the author examines some of the most pertinent problems that have arisen in distinguishing between different types of legislation and definition of these types by the courts, based on the theoretical bases for definition of types of legislation.