Revocation, Nullity, Omission, and Party Litigation: The Route That Fits the Demand

Abstract

This volume asks what kind of suit is needed to restore a public-law right in the way one wants. Removing a disposition, confirming its effect, confirming the illegality of silence, and obtaining public-law performance each require a different dispositive part. Changing the route means that the object, standing to sue, and the provisions applied mutatis mutandis must also be read anew. The path to relief opens where the disposition to be removed, the effect to be confirmed, the omission, or the public-law performance is matched to the corresponding type of suit and its effects, and closes where a confirmation of the illegality of an omission alone is used in an attempt to obtain directly the permit or payment of performance as applied for, so that the effects of the chosen type do not reach the demand. The six sections address, in turn, the object to be removed by revocation, suits asking whether an effect exists, confirmation of a disposition not made, the parties to public-law relationships, a map of mutatis mutandis application, and the matching of demand and relief. The strongest counterargument is as follows. Relief for the same harm may be barred on the ground that the claimant chose the wrong procedure. The effect of administrative rules, case design, and audits of the illegality of authority are not addressed in this volume.