Wer ist die Verwaltung? – Transparenz der Verwaltungsakteure für die Bürger

Abstract

The article addresses the external perception of the administration from an administrative science perspective. Following Bogumil/Kuhlmann, the administration legitimises itself by having to explain its decision in the forum. This requires both the facts and the process to be made transparent. This consideration does not take into account the extent to which the actors acting on behalf of the administration must be visible and therefore transparent. It can be observed that the administration appears asymetrically, depending on whether the addressee of the administrative action has to identify himself with his first and last name, date of birth and, if applicable, registration address and a person with an official title and surname signs an administrative act for him, or if the police confront him with a sequence of numbers on his breastplate, or indeed if he reads “machine-generated document and therefore valid without signature” under a letter.

These three groups of cases are examined in the publication and the legal framework is analysed. For the first case group, the authority appears with one person as responsible for the individual case decision in accordance with Sec. 37 Para. 3 VwVfG. The requirements of federal law and, by way of example, Berlin state law show that clear rules are provided for the formation of authority names – i. e. the external administrative bodies. Who appears externally and how, whether the authority management or the administrative level, can vary just as much as the personal details. However, these regulations only represent the minimum programme, so that the authorities can also provide detailed contact details of those responsible in a customer-oriented manner in accordance with Art. 14 Para. 2 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

If security forces confront the citizen in the second case group, this can happen in different contexts. It can be the citizen seeking protection or, conversely, the police, who appear threatening in the context of criminal prosecution. Especially in the latter case, a particular tension arises between the interest in the traceability of actions – i. e. the ability to be individualized – and at the same time the employer’s duty of care to protect police officers from acts of revenge in their private lives. The middle path taken in Berlin police law is presented, according to which Sec. 5a ASOG gives the police the choice between a sign with their family name or a number.

Finally, there is the most faceless variant of administration, when in mass procedures, such as when issuing parking fines, the document is supposed to be valid without a signature (Sec. 37 Para. 5 VwVfG). However, the assumptions from the 1970s that the limited performance of IT does not allow naming the specific person controlling the process are outdated. In this respect, it is noteworthy that higher demands are being placed on electronic administrative acts. The requirements for the visible administrative act only need to be reconsidered when one thinks about completely programmed process processing or accompanied by artificial intelligence.

Overall, it can be stated that, according to the legal construction, the authority as an institutional subject is in the foreground when the administration’s external actions are subject to official decisions. The actors who act internally take a back seat. So the institution explains itself in the forum, but not its decision-makers. From the perspective of the legitimacy and transparency of administrative action, the regulations for identifying police security forces appear particularly balanced. In other areas, particularly performance management and digital process processing, transparency can be achieved in most cases.