Although the time factor has gained increasing significance in administrative law, prevailing legal scholarship and case law continue to qualify the violation of time limits on proceedings \u2014 in the absence of specific legal provisions \u2014 as a mere irregularity. The matter is different in the sanctioning proceedings conducted by independent authorities, due to the punitive nature of the measures and the heightened protections afforded to the defence in this context, in application of European Union case law on substantively criminal sanctions. Fluctuations in case law orientations on the ordinary or peremptory nature of procedural time limits, in this area, reflect the difficulty of balancing, on one hand, the protection of the rights of sanctioned parties and the predictability of the timing of punitive action; and on the other, the effectiveness of the suppression of illegal acts and the authority\u2019s protection of the public interest harmed by the infringement. After reconstructing the regulatory framework and the opposing stances in case law, the article analyses the specific elements of the sanctioning proceedings of certain independent authorities. The text then raises questions on the correct classification of procedural time limits within the administrative law system and the regime of belated measures.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Although the time factor has gained increasing significance in administrative law, prevailing legal scholarship and case law continue to qualify the violation of time limits on proceedings \u2014 in the absence of specific legal provisions \u2014 as a mere irregularity. The matter is different in the sanctioning proceedings conducted by independent authorities, due to the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n