Rally in favour of Administrative Justice: A summary and reflection

Rally in favour of Administrative Justice: A summary and reflection

In the video, Professor Vasco Pereira da Silva provided an analysis of the evolution of administrative justice, referencing the historical differences between the French and British systems and their approaches to the unity and duality of jurisdictions.

He explained how the French Revolution established a framework where administration and justice were intertwined, creating a context of confusion and leading to the creation of administrative courts and a specialized branch of law — administrative law.
In contrast, in the United Kingdom, administrative justice developed without its own framework and was initially subordinated to ordinary courts and common law.

The Professor also described how the welfare state, during the early 20th century, influenced both systems, bringing them closer. In France, judicialization gradually limited executive power over administration, while in the UK, administrative law emerged to regulate new economic and social functions. He used the analogy of the “problematic adolescence” of the British system versus the “difficult childhood” of French law to illustrate these historical differences. The professor also clarified that there are administrative bodies, not courts, emphasizing the first slogan: “Common or special, a court is a court”.

The divergence between the French and British systems intensified in the 1970s with the emergence of the post-welfare state. During this phase of consolidation, the jurisdictional authority of administrative courts was reinforced, along with the implications for the scope of their jurisdiction and the powers entrusted to judges. This period also affirmed the subjective dimension of jurisdiction, ensuring the full and effective protection of individual rights. Administrative courts came to be recognized as fully equal to other courts, endowed with the same powers and responsibilities, reinforced by European constitutions and the Europeanization of administrative justice.

In the UK, the specialization of administrative justice became more pronounced with the development of the Administrative Court. Although this court exists, many lawyers are unaware of it. Today, the UK has both an Administrative Court and distinct procedural rules for administrative matters, the so-called judicial review. As the Professor emphasized: “In the UK, there is an administrative court”, highlighting the gap in practical knowledge among legal professionals.

As a result of this evolution, both in France and the UK,  there are now specialized courts to hear administrative disputes, alongside specific procedural rules. The main difference lies in whether there are superior courts, as in France and Portugal, or not, as in the UK. From a comparative law perspective, the key question is no longer whether a country has a unified or dual system of jurisdictions, but the structure, level (first instance, second instance, or both), and scope of specialization. Today, most countries exhibit some degree of specialization: at the first instance level, as in the UK; at the second instance level, as in the federal courts of the USA and Brazil; or across all instances, as in France, Portugal, and Germany.

The Professor concluded with the third slogan: “Specialization, the solution”, emphasizing how specialization improves both the efficiency of courts and the protection of individual rights.

Analyzing different models of court organization in administrative matters, we reach an almost paradoxical conclusion considering their historical origins. Countries with higher specialization tend to be more effective in controlling administration and protecting rights, although this is not absolute and depends on other institutional factors. In contrast, countries relying on ordinary courts may face limitations due to judicial self-restraint, as in the US, or restrictions on judicial review, as in the UK.

In Germany, historical challenges have been largely overcome, resulting in courts with broader powers and judges specialized in administrative law. 

In Portugal, the autonomous jurisdiction for administrative and tax litigation implies at least three levels of specialization:

1. Training
2. Career development
3. Court organization

This highlights that there is still work to be done: improving judicial training, enhancing the autonomy of administrative judges’ careers, and creating specialized courts within the common administrative jurisdiction. Administrative justice remains an evolving process.

Finally, the Professor concluded: “Administrative lawyers around the world, unite for a global rule of law”, connecting the discussion to broader comparative perspectives.

Watching this, allowed me to better understand the historical development of administrative justice and the different paths taken by France and the United Kingdom. It also made me realize how the degree of specialization in administrative courts can have a real impact on citizens’ rights and the effectiveness of judicial control over public administration.
The comparative approach helped me reflect on how these lessons apply to Portugal, particularly in the ongoing effort to strengthen training, independence, and specialization within the administrative judiciary. Overall, it encouraged me to think more critically about how institutional design influences the balance between public power and individual rights.

Francisco Magalhães Ferreira 
nº 140122175