Administrative law and human rights enforcement. It has been repeatedly stated that as the power of the state expands, it is against the rights and freedoms of citizens. Administrative law recognizes the importance of authority. Effective governance and efficient service delivery are needed, not just tyranny. However, power that deviates from the law and the constitution weighs the benefits. Arbitrary actions, such as ‘I can do whatever I want, I can do whatever I want!’, Undermine the basic right to live, move freely, to speak, to express one’s opinion, and to own property. The role of administrative law in protecting human rights clearly illustrates the connection between the two. In order to better understand the positive impact of the law on the protection and implementation of human rights, it is appropriate to analyze the government’s commitment to human rights. These roles are to protect respect and enforcement. First, the role of government in respecting rights restricts interference from any part of the government when citizens exercise their rights freely. Especially in the so-called basics of living, writing, speaking; To follow the religion of your choice; The rights and freedoms of freedom of movement and property are guaranteed in practice when the government raises its hand. These rights are determined by the government, particularly by the executive and its subordinate administration; Order: They may be endangered by rules and regulations. As the Constitution is the supreme law, not all laws, decisions and practices that contradict this will be enforced. Such a question of constitutionality does not fall into the category of administrative law. However, the question of what constitutes a constitution is more likely to be covered by the administrative law framework. If a directive issued by a governing body violates the human rights of citizens beyond the power of attorney given by the legislature, it is a matter of constitutionality, but it is a matter of legality that must be addressed by the administrative law. To better understand the difference, let’s look at the following instructions from the former Ministry of Revenue and the current Revenue and Customs Authority. No customs officer can strike or strike. The right to peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the FDRE Constitution. Article 30, sub-paragraph 1, which gives him the right, reads as follows: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. When a directive is issued by the executive, there must be a clear delegate from the legislature. The directive is beyond the scope of the power of attorney (Ulta vires). It is therefore null and void before the law. When the Ministry of Revenue issued this directive, the proclamation to establish the source of power and the decision of the Customs Authority. 368/1995 refers to Article 8 (2) (c). This legal provision reads as follows. The Ministry of Police, assigned by the Federal Police Commission to enforce customs law, shall operate in accordance with the directives issued by the Federal Police Proclamation. Manages. When disaster strikes, he dismisses it. This article does not authorize the Ministry of Revenue to prohibit customs officers from conducting peaceful demonstrations. This directive, issued without the explicit authorization of the House of Representatives, is neither valid nor enforceable. Administrative law enforces the government’s obligation to respect human rights by enforcing such directives in various ways to prevent the violation of citizens’ rights and freedoms. Government enforcement responsibilities are often social; It is directly related to economic and cultural rights. It is not enough for the government not to interfere in the rights of citizens or to raise its hand. If he does not provide basic services to the citizen, such as health, electricity, water, roads, etc., he will not be free. The relationship between administrative law and human rights can also be examined in terms of the government’s obligation to enforce it. In this regard, the government must strengthen its regulatory and institutional mechanisms to ensure that human rights are not violated, and that it must establish a system of immediate justice for victims of human rights abuses. In short, in order for human rights to be respected, the government needs to formulate, establish, and develop a well-developed administrative law and administrative system.
1) Without prejudice to Sub-Article (2) of Article 7 of this Code, marriage concluded by a man or a woman under the age of eighteen years shall dissolve on the application of any interested person or the public prosecutor. 2) It may no longer be applied for after the age required by law of marriage is satisfied. Article 32. – Consanguinity of Affinity. The dissolution of marriage concluded in violation of impediments arising out of consanguinity or affinity shall be ordered on the application of any interested person or the public prosecutor. Article 33. – Bigamy 1) The dissolution of a bigamous marriage shall be ordered on the application if either of the spouses of bigamous marriage or the public prosecutor. 2) The dissolution mentioned on Sub-Article (1) of this Article may no longer be applied for where the former spouse of the bigamous marriage has died. Article 34 . – Dissolution of Marriage of a Judicially Interdicted person. 1) Where a judicially interdicted person has contracted marriage without prior authorization of the court, the dissolution of such marriage may be requested from the court by the judicially interdicted person himself or by his guardian. 2) The judicially interdicted person may no longer make an application for dissolution six months after the date of termination of his disability. 3) An application for dissolution by the guardian may no longer be made six months after the day on which the guardian came to know the existence of the marriage or in any case, after the disability of the interdicted person has ceased. Article 35. – Act of Violence 1) Whosoever has concluded marriage under the influence of violence may apply to the court to order the dissolution thereof. 2) Such an application may not be made six months after the cessation of such violence and, in any case, two years after the conclusion of the marriage. Article 36. – Error 1) Whosoever has concluded marriage due to fundamental error, may apply to the court to order the dissolution thereof. 2) Such an application may not be made six months after the discovery of such error, and , in any case, two years after the conclusion of the marriage. Article 37. – Period of Widowhood. The dissolution of marriage may not be ordered for the sole reason that the period of widowhood specified under Sub-Article (1) of Article 16 has not been observed. Article 38. – Incompetence of Officer of Civil Status. The dissolution of marriage may not be ordered solely on the ground of incompetence of the officer of civil status who celebrated the marriage. Article 39. – Non-Observance of Formalities. The dissolution of marriage may not be ordered on the sole ground that the formalities of celebration specified under Sub Articles (3) and (6) of Article 25 have not been observed.