Search

The International Seabed Authority (or ISA) is nearing a world-first decision: whether to approve, on behalf of humankind, potentially in the absence of regulations, an application for exploitation rights over deep sea minerals. We assess whether an operator, who invested in exploration activities but whose application to mine was refused by the ISA, may successfully take legal action against the ISA based on their 'legitimate expectations' to be granted exploitation rights. We find significant obstacles for such a claim. Firstly, the ISA has with contractors a legal relationship that differs from that between sovereign states and foreign investors. Furthermore, exploration contractors assumed the risk of carrying exploration despite knowing that, due to its complex institutional structures, and need to adapt to evolving international norms and new scientific information, the ISA could ultimately decide to proceed in a different direction. Finally, there are sizeable procedural challenges for any prospective claimant against the ISA relying on 'legitimate expectations', both in accessing the relevant forum and in identifying an enforceable remedy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aims to analyze the correlation between the EU principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the national tax law. The purpose of this study is to identify the manner in which the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is perceived in national law and its field of application. Starting from the EU origin of this principle of law, our purpose is to outline its incidence in national law, considering the case law of the courts in fiscal matters.

Debates concerning digital automation are mostly focused on the question of the availability of jobs in the short and long term. To counteract the possible negative effects of automation, it is often suggested that those at risk of technological unemployment should have access to retraining and reskilling opportunities. What is often missing in these debates are implications that all of this may have for individual autonomy understood as the ability to make and develop long-term plans. In this paper, I argue that if digital automation becomes rapid, it will significantly undermine the legitimate expectation of stability and consequently, the ability to make and pursue long-term plans in the sphere of work. I focus on what is often taken to be one of the main long-term plans, i.e. the choice of profession, and I argue that this choice may be undermined by the pressure to continuously acquire new skills while at the same time facing a diminishing range of professions that one can choose from. Given that the choice of profession is significant for not-work related spheres of life, its undermining can greatly affect individual autonomy in these other spheres too. I argue that such undermining of individual planning agency constitutes a distinctive form of harm that necessitates a proactive institutional response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the issue of the possibility of retroactive effect of the results of judicial interpretation of criminal law in the context of its legal certainty. It is stated that the effect of a law in time is a manifestation of legal certainty. Predictability of a criminal law does not mean that this law should be understood equally by everyone and be certain and predictable for everyone. Accordingly, courts may interpret criminal law, the result of which should be predictable for the addressee. Based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and also taking into account the theory of "legitimate expectations", which is widely used, in particular, by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the activitybased approach to the study of legal phenomena, the author proves that the issue of retroactive effect should be resolved not only with regard to the criminal law itself, but also with regard to the results of judicial interpretation provided by the Supreme Court, which is objectified in the form of legal conclusions set out in the Supreme Court's rulings, which are binding on all public authorities which apply in their activities a legal act containing the relevant rule of law, and the conclusions on the application of the rules of law set out in the Supreme Court's rulings are taken into account by other courts when applying such rules of law. If the result of judicial interpretation interprets the criminal law provision that was applicable at the time of the criminal offense more «rigidly», it does not have retroactive effect. If such a result of judicial interpretation is more favorable for the person who committed the criminal offense compared to the interpretation that existed at the time of the criminal offense, then such a result has retroactive effect. The new result of a judicial interpretation of a criminal law provision may have retroactive effect if such interpretation was foreseeable for the addressee of the criminal law and did not violate his legitimate expectations or violate expectations that were not subject to protection for specific reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses issues not touched upon in legal literature, namely the legal status and consequences of comfort letters issued by the European Commission in State aid cases. The European Commission has exclusive competence to examine the compliance of support provided by Member States to domestic undertakings with State aid rules. Under EU law, the Commission's final position on the State aid character of the assessed measure must take the form of a decision. However, sometimes, the proceedings are concluded not by a decision but by a comfort letter. It presents the final position of the European Commission and, in many cases, ends the procedure. However, the legal character of the Commission's comfort letters may raise doubts. The article explains the concept of comfort letters issued in State aid cases, their legal status, and the consequences they bring to interested parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To avoid the disastrous effects of climate change, a rapid and drastic transition toward a low-carbon society and economy is required. This transition imposes significant transitional losses on some agents given the benefits they can no longer realize. In economic terms, it leads to the stranding of their assets. This article investigates whether fossil fuel owners could refer to their expectations about the benefits of producing their reserves to justify transitional measures such as exemptions from new rules or financial compensations. It criticizes forward-looking views on the normative relevance of expectations and defends a backward-looking view, which justifies limited claims. It contends that states that are responsible for creating false expectations about regulatory stability should provide compensations to fossil fuel companies for the costs of relying on those expectations. States can be held responsible if they caused this expectation-related harm in a foreseeable and avoidable way, which is only the case if the expectation is reasonable and if they were not put under pressure by the lobbying activities of the fossil fuel industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data protection by design is an obligation for data controllers according to article 25(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The present paper explores the concept of data protection by design and proposes that data protection certificates can offer guidance to data controllers, about compliance with this GDPR obligation. An exploration of officially approved certification schemes shows that the certification requirements may lay down concrete use cases which can guide data controllers about compliance with the obligation of data protection by design. Even though these policies are not a comprehensive guide for data protection by design, they lay down valuable solutions with respect to effective compliance. Moreover, the data protection measures of compliance in certification criteria have been approved by the competent Data Protection Authority and possibly the European Data Protection Board. As the present paper argues, the official approval by the competent authorities creates legitimate expectations under European Union Law. Specifically, data controllers can legitimately expect that abidance by approved safeguards meets the expectations of the authorities that are entrusted with monitoring their compliance. For these reasons, certification though an ex post mechanism, can offer valuable ex ante guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the energy transition is needed more than ever, for some agents it brings significant losses. This article investigates whether fossil fuel owners could refer to promises to avoid having their assets stranded. It explains how authors, in the context of just transitions, have argued for the normative relevance of Rawlsian legitimate expectations, which refer to promissory entitlements. However, it argues that the normative relevance of promises towards fossil fuel owners is limited, because there are only few promises about what will be permissible in the future and because these promises should be just before they can lead to entitlements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the Real Estate Transfer Tax ("RETT") exemption established in article 8 of the RETT Code that applies to certain acquisitions of real estate by credit institutions and commercial companies over whose capital they have direct or indirect control and, in particular, the cases when the exemption ceases to apply under article 11(6) of the RETT Code, as amended by the State Budget Law for 2020, with a particular focus on how the exemption applies over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Jordanian Journal of Law & Political Science is the property of Mutah University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Climate change involves changes in the climate system caused by polluting human activities and the social and natural effects of these changes. The historical and anthropogenic grounds of climate change play an important role in climate justice claims. Many climate justice scholars believe that principles of climate justice should account for the historical and anthropogenic sources of climate change. Two main backward-looking principles have been proposed: the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). The BPP emerged in the literature on climate justice in response to certain objections raised against the PPP. In this paper, I focus on two of these objections: the causation objection and the excusable ignorance objection. Defenders of the BPP have traditionally assumed that this principle is not vulnerable to those objections, which renders the BPP superior to the PPP. In this paper, I challenge this underlying assumption. My argument here is simple: moving from the PPP to the BPP in response to any of these objections might be unjustified because the BPP is affected by at least some of the considerations giving rise to these objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The paper offers the analysis of implementation of legal certainty principle and access to justice in Ukraine. Both are regarded in connection to the rule of law principle; their coordination is shown in cases when the application of rule of law is required to patch the holes of imperfect judicial system facing the challenges of the ongoing war. Methods: The methods of legal reasoning and analysis are used to present the main approaches to legal certainty principle as well as to the access to justice. Additionally, with the help of comparative method their meaning and influence on the legal practice are established. The method of analogy is used to predict the possible solutions in order to improve access to justice in Ukraine. Results and Conclusions: Legal certainty is an element of the rule of law, it provides predictability in legal regulation, the clarity of legal norms, and demands the propriate way of legal acts enforcement as well as prohibits retroactivity. It challenges respect to the legitimate expectations and provides stability in legal regulation. The improvement in the application of the right to access to justice is beneficial for the legal certainty and vice versa. When legal certainty is violated due to the gap in legislation, unclarity of legal norms or controversy of legislative provisions and violated rights of the claimant could be restored, if the right of access to court is fully guaranteed. It is stated that res judicata, a requirement for legal certainty is a demand that is also common to access to justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The speedy reforms of Serbia's tax legislation, often introduced on the basis of comparative sources, has created a significant body of dormant legislation, due to the lack of knowledge and experience to implement them. The article explores some aspects of legitimacy of Serbian tax legislation, namely the consequences of the misalignment of tax law provisions with taxpayers behavior, using the example of unregistered freelancer taxation. The authors address fundamental legal certainty issues arising from the clash between changes brought on by innovation and imposition of static tax legislation to circumstances unimaginable at the time the legislation was enacted. Analysis has shown that Serbian legislation and caselaw do not provide an effective remedy for these cases, since the principle of legitimate expectations, as developed elsewhere in Europe, is still distant. The authors propose a specific institutional mechanism for overcoming uncertainty in similar situations.

Copyright of Revista del ICDT is the property of Instituto Colombiano de Derecho Tributario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines how tribunals set up under the CAFTA-DR have interpreted the fair and equitable treatment ('FET') standard under Article 10.5 in the last 15 years. It shows that they have consistently referred to NAFTA case law to define the standard and to interpret the scope and content of the different elements it contains (arbitrary conduct, legitimate expectations, due process). The only exception is regarding denial of justice. This is a fascinating example of "cross treaty interpretation". I will explain the reasons why CAFTA tribunals have done so and examine whether or not this "cross treaty interpretation" en bloc is legitimate and sound in light of the canons of treaty interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the climate justice discussion revolves around how the remaining carbon budget should be globally allocated. Some authors defend the unjust enrichment interpretation of the beneficiary pays principle (BPP). According to this principle, those states unjustly enriched from historical emissions should pay. I argue that if the BPP is to be constructed along the lines of the unjust enrichment doctrine, countervailing reasons that might be able to block the existence of a duty of restitution should be assessed. One might think that the duty to provide restitution no longer has moral weight if many benefits were already consumed, if the particular benefits obtained from historical emissions cannot be transferred from one country to another, or if present members of developed countries framed their life plans based upon the expectation of continued possession of those benefits. I show that none of these reasons negate the duty to provide restitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legitimate expectations should be considered in the transition to a low-carbon society. After explaining under what conditions and circumstances expectations are legitimate, this paper shows that those expectations whose frustration undermines the ability to plan, infringes basic moral rights, or is extremely costly for its bearer might justify a deviation in the baseline of justice in favour of the expectation holder. People should be notified about the likely frustration of their expectations so that they can avoid the frustration of their expectations, adapt their life plans and minimise costs. Since the frustration of legitimate expectations seems unavoidable in the transformation to a low-carbon society, priority should be given to the protection of the expectations of those who cannot be materially compensated. Still, if two groups are eligible for material compensation, we should give priority to protecting the expectation of those who cannot continue with the same life plan as before if their expectations are frustrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the extent to which concessionary rights are protected under three different branches of international law; traditional customary law, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and arbitral practice under investment treaties. It reveals clear similarities with respect to when such rights are considered protected. However, it simultaneously argues that case law under investment treaties tends to adopt a less nuanced approach to the nature of such rights, almost invariably assuming them to constitute a kind of property. This again entails that the investor/concessionaire is seen to have a right to performance, and in effect to protection of his expectation interest. The article shows how this stands in contrast with a more nuanced perspective under the property provision of the ECHR, which better reflects the complexities of the issue under municipal law. While a failure to sufficiently respect an investor's legitimate expectations may entail liability for the state, it is not necessarily comparable to expropriation of property and will usually entail only that the investor has a right to recover his reliance loss. The article argues that this may be reflective of a more general tendency in international investment law and arbitration also pointed to by others, where the modality of protection under investment treaties threatens to distort important nuances and concerns and overprotect foreign investment compared to other private rights and interests under municipal law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People give surprising weight to others' expectations about their behaviour. I argue the practice of conforming to others' expectations is ethically well-grounded. A special class of 'reasonable expectations' can create prima facie obligations even in cases where the expectations arise from contingent pre-existing practices, and the duty-bearer has not created them, or directly benefited from them. The obligation arises because of the substantial goods that follow from such conformity—goods capable of being endorsed from many different ethical perspectives and implicating key moral factors such as consent, fairness, respect, autonomy, and reciprocity. Given the innumerable situations where such expectations can arise, their ethical significance is critical both practically and philosophically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The subject of the study is legitimate expectations as an object of judicial protection in civil proceedings, as well as the principle of law, due to the hope of a person for a procedure in which the state will ensure effective protection of the violated right or legitimate hope for the state promise. Understanding of these categories directly depends on the method of interpretation and priority of certain forms of law as substantive and formal characteristics that express the law. The study is based on a systems approach. Given the purpose of the study, methods that generally allowed to determine the optimal type of legal understanding were used, which eventually made it possible to solve the problem of finding a tool of interpretation: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal legal and comparative legal, and other methods. Arguments are made in favor of the idea that the protection of legitimate expectations in terms of legal understanding and law enforcement within the natural, social concept of law and legal positivism is reduced to legal skepticism and only the probability of compliance with the requirements of legal certainty. The main result of the study is to join a synergetic approach to legal understanding, which provides a complex but clear algorithm for comparing formal and substantive legal phenomena in civil proceedings, which is a multi-stage test of proportionality as a universal tool which provides an opportunity to take into account the diversity of certain law enforcement circumstances in the case, ensuring the legitimate expectations of the person of substantive and procedural nature. The results of the study can be used in further research to determine the alleged interpretive mechanisms in civil proceedings that have the purpose of the alleged enforcement. This determines the practical significance of the results of the study in the case of application by courts of procedural rules, determined at its discretion.

After the European Court of Justice seminal decision in Achmea, where consent to investor-State arbitration enshrined in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties was found to be incompatible with the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal order, the European Commission has presented a draft proposal for the modernization of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The proposal relies markedly on the new investment agreements concluded between the European Union and third states, mainly CETA and the agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. It puts forward some key amendments on substantive provisions, by creating regulatory space for sustainable development and transition to clean energy. As regards the fair and equitable standard, the proposal adds that the 'the tribunal may take into account whether a Contracting party made a specific representation to an investor to induce a covered investment, that created a legitimate expectation, upon which the investor relied in to make or maintain the covered investment'. This article focuses on the concept of 'specific representation', by asking whether it (still) encompasses promises made by the legislator, in order to access the impact that said provision might have on previous ECT arbitration case law concerning renewable energy and climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the issue of legitimate expectations in the arbitral practice of green energy cases under the Energy Charter Treaty. Before the economic crisis of 2008, several European countries provided special incentives and subsidies to investors in the field of renewable energy. However, following the crisis, some of them (e.g. Spain and Italy) abridged these benefits, which resulted in a number of arbitration proceedings under the Energy Charter Treaty. Some of these are still pending. Most of these disputes are centered on legitimate expectations, a major component of the fair and equitable treatment standard. The introductory part of the article gives a general overview of the issue of legitimate expectations in international investment law, and identifies the three types of situations which can generate legitimate expectations: specific commitments, unilateral representation or promises, and regulatory frameworks. The main part of the work analyses the most relevant green-energy cases of the Energy-Charter-Treaty-related arbitrations, with special emphasis on the issue of legitimate expectations. In the final part of the paper, conclusions are drawn based on the case law here presented, as well as other researched cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The CJEU has repeatedly found that the obligation to prevent the deterioration of protected sites under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive can make it necessary to review existing permits of activities with negative effects on these sites. At the same time, the CJEU has recognised that legal certainty and legitimate expectations are general principles of EU law. Therefore, in principle, final administrative decisions do not need to be reopened, even if they are in conflict with EU law. The present contribution investigates legal mechanisms to achieve coherence between these two lines of jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of certain kinds of natural hazard events in alpine areas. This interdisciplinary study addresses the hypothetical possibility of relocating the residents of three alpine areas in Austria: the Sölk valleys, the Johnsbach valley, and the St. Lorenzen/Schwarzenbach valleys. Our particular focus is on these residents' expectations about such relocations. We find that (1) many residents expect that in the next decades the state will provide them with a level of natural hazards protection, aid, and relief that allows them to continue to live in these valleys; (2) this expectation receives some legal protection but only when it is associated with fundamental rights; and (3) the expectation is morally significant, i.e., it ought to be considered in assessing the moral rightness or justness of relocation policies. These results suggest legal changes and likely extend to many other (Austrian) alpine areas as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the significance of investor due diligence in the context of a claim that a host State has breached its obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment (FET). Despite increasing reliance on due diligence exercises, there are considerable differences in how tribunals understand and use such exercises. These differences are related to different visions of the function and future of international investment law. After exploring the different approaches that are taken, this article will argue that the most coherent approach is to treat investor due diligence as merely a technique for assessing investor reasonableness and prudence, rather than a strict requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Iurisprudentia is the property of Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors have conducted the analysis of the legislation of Ukraine, the case law of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as doctrinal approaches to understanding legitimate expectations as objects of corporate legal relations. It has been concluded that the share (capital share), and in fact participation in the company, is an asset associated with the occurrence of favorable property consequences in the future, and has all the characteristics of legitimate expectations. Participation in a company has all the characteristics necessary for its potential monetary evaluation, because it is negative from its owner (does not have a personal, inseparable connection with the person to whom it belongs), and therefore is potentially viable. Monetary evaluation of the participation in the company allows us to classify this object as property benefits (asset). The emergence of economic benefits, as a result of the use of participation, the exercise of the right to it, indicates the connection of such benefits with the consequences that arise. Thus, participation in the company has all the characteristics of legitimate expectations. That is, the participant expects in the future to receive economic benefits from the participation in the company (exercise of corporate rights) that result from the placement of certain values in the charter capital, which have a monetary value. Legitimate expectations, in addition to regulatory corporate legal relations, can be recognized as the object of protective corporate relations, based on the facts of the violation of the right to peaceful possession of such property. It is applied both to the violation of the right to manage the corporation (in case of failure to notify about the general meeting of participants) and the refusal to repurchase shares from a shareholder as the exercise of the “right to disagree”. It is alleged that there are also protective legal relations with such an object as legitimate expectations in case of the violation of the rights to dividends, to the payment of the value of the share (capital share), to the liquidation quota. But such legal relations are not corporate, because the rights to be protected are not included into the group of corporate rights.

The article deals with internal regulations, which represent one of the traditional forms of public administration activities. It examines which issues may be subject to internal regulations and which issues may not. Furthermore, the author pays particular attention to the analysis of whether internal regulations can also have external effects in relation to addressees of public administration. Finally, the article also draws attention to other problematic aspects related to the issuing of internal regulations, which are mainly caused by their minimalist legislation.

In order to take measures to help the categories of people who had to stop their activity, the legislator regulated the granting of an allowance during the period in which the state of emergency was decreed in Romania, such as those established by O.U.G. no. 30/2020. In the context in which it was held by the public authority, through a subsequent analysis, that the conditions for granting the mentioned compensation are not met because the agricultural crops have been maintained, the national court was called to interpret the notion of interruption of the activity, used by the legislator in O.U.G. nr. 30/2020. The analysis involves identifying the purpose pursued by the legislator when enactment of the norm, establishing the purpose of carrying out the activity and the legitimate expectations created by the public authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

An idea that has gained significant traction in both case law and academic commentary as a justification for the protection of legitimate expectations is the concept of 'good administration'. Going beyond the usual criticisms of the concept's ambiguity, this article aims to highlight an additional set of difficulties with the invocation of 'good administration' as the normative justification for the doctrine. This article's central argument is that the concept of 'good' invoked by the idea of 'good administration' inevitably falls to be substantiated by a particular conception of what the 'good' requires as a matter of political philosophy. And given that there are multiple competing conceptions of what 'good' law and government are, this magnifies the challenges of coming to a landing on the precise content of 'good administration'. This article will illustrate that the various formulations of the normative foundation of the doctrine track closely with four different conceptions of 'good' law and government and will explore the implications of this diagnosis for the formulation of the proper justification for the protection of legitimate expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper puts forward two claims about funding carbon capture and storage. The first claim is that there are moral justifications supporting strategic investment into CO2 storage from global and regional perspectives. One argument draws on the empirical evidence which suggests carbon capture and storage would play a significant role in a portfolio of global solutions to climate change; the other draws on Rawls’ notion of legitimate expectations and Moellendorf’s Anti-Poverty principle. The second claim is that where to pursue this strategic investment poses a morally non-trivial problem, with considerations like near-term global distributive justice and undermining legitimate expectations favouring investing in developing regions, especially in Asia, and considerations like long-term climate impacts and best uses of resources favouring investing in the relatively wealthy regions that have the best prospects for successful storage development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Administering allowances payable to European Union agents and officers is not a simple matter of reviewing requests, information and documentation provided by the potential beneficiaries of such allowances. It is actually a complex internal process, which requires from the administrators a thorough knowledge of the legal contexts that are specifically applicable and of a number of general principles governing European Union law. This expertise, accompanied by a clear and consistent approach regarding how to deal with actual cases can limit the number of mistakes made in final payments and thus reduce the risk of generating disputes with officials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of legitimate expectations has entered the domestic scientific community due to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), at the same time in official/authentic translations of its decisions in Ukrainian, as well as in the scientific literature there are a number of options for translating the term to denote this concept ("lawful anticipation", "rightful expectations", "justified expectations", "legitimate anticipation" etc.), which creates the illusion that these are different legal phenomena. The inconsistency of terminology, as well as the needs of legal practice, actualize attempts to clarify the essence and content of this legal phenomenon. The purpose of the article is to identify, based on the analysis of ECtHR decisions in key cases in which the European Court of Human Rights disclosed the concept of legitimate expectations, a number of criteria that allow a person to argue that he or she has at least a "legitimate expectations" falling within the scope of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention). In the ECtHR case law the concept of legitimate expectations was developed while examining complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and is much narrower than in the Venice Commission documents such as the 2011 Report on the Rule of Law and the 2016 Rule of Law Checklist, in which legitimate expectations are seen as part of the principle of legal certainty, along with res judicata, the enforcement of final judgments and other elements of that principle, and in which there is no indication that the undertakings or promises held out by the state to individuals should in general be honoured (the notion of the 'legitimate expectation') applies only to property or economic aspects. Given that the Convention protects existing rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention does not guarantee, as such, a right to acquire property, ie protects not a hypothetical possibility but "existing possessions" and assets, including specific property claims, it is necessary that the "legitimate expectation" 'must be of a nature more concrete than a mere hope' (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova, § 73; Kopecký v. Slovakia, § 49). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of legitimate expectations is one of the new principles of Serbian administrative procedure. Unfortunately, it is regulated in a very wage and imprecise manner. This is why the authors have tried to determine its true meaning. They have also posed the following question: is the principle of legitimate expectations necessary in Serbian administrative procedure? In reply to this question, they have confirmed their basic hypothesis and concluded that the answer is: no. This "principle" is just another way to name and explain some other principles - such as legality, equality and legal certainty. Legitimate expectations are just a reflection of these principles; they do not form some new and special principle. In Serbian administrative procedure, they change nothing and mean nothing