Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to analyse the extent of a court’s authority to moderate[1] penalties imposed by administrative bodies in several Central European countries: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany, and Austria. The central goal is to investigate the legal frameworks within these nations and their relationship to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.The methodology employed involves a comparative analysis of legal provisions in the aforementioned countries concerning judicial review of administrative penalties. The study scrutinizes the differences in the legal approaches taken by these nations, highlighting the diverse methods used to address the court’s role in moderating administrative penalties. The investigation is grounded in the concept of full jurisdiction, emphasising the right of individuals to have their cases thoroughly examined by a court, which also includes assessing the legality, merit, appropriateness, and proportionality of the penalties imposed.The findings reveal significant variations among the surveyed countries regarding the approach to judicial review of administrative penalties. These differences underscore the complex interplay between the executive and judiciary branches within legal systems, raising crucial concerns about principles such as legal certainty, proportionality, and the right to an effective remedy. The paper illuminates the varying degrees of court intervention in moderating administrative penalties across different legal contexts and makes a substantial academic contribution by shedding light on a relatively understudied aspect of administrative law within Central Europe. It provides valuable insights into how different legal systems address the delicate balance between executive power and judicial oversight, particularly in matters of administrative penalties.The study’s originality lies in its comparative approach, offering a nuanced understanding of the court’s role in moderating penalties and its implications for broader legal principles and human rights protection. Furthermore, the paper serves as a foundational resource for scholars and practitioners interested in exploring the origins and nuances of judicial moderation in administrative law, potentially inspiring further research and providing a schematic tool for navigating this complex legal terrain. [1] The article uses the term ‘moderate’ as a verb in situations where a court, as defined in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is by law authorized to reduce the imposed administrative penalty at its discretion or to refrain entirely from imposing a penalty while reviewing an administrative decision. In such instances, we are not referring to court moderation wherein the court is the entity directly imposing the administrative penalty.

The Administrative Cost of Appeal Systems and Error Correction

District Circuit Court: An Approach of Realism——An Analysis Based on Death Penalty Review Process

Current status, obstacles and advice for improvement on expert assistant system

Appeal rate and caseload: evidence from civil litigation in Korea

Information System of Appellate Procedure

The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

Analysis of Impact from Administrative Reconsideration on Administrative Litigation

Draining the judiciary bottleneck: A quasi-experiment in improving a government service

Persons Authorized for Court Decision Appeal

A Court’s Right to Moderate Administrative Penalty in Selected Central European Countries

Reconsidering the costs of commitment: Learning and state acceptance of the UN human rights treaties' individual complaint procedures

Litigant Status and Trial Court Appeal Mobilization

Inputs and Outputs on Appeal: An Empirical Study of Briefs, Big Law, and Case Complexity

Judicial efficiency, debt structure, and cost of debt

Replacing Agency Adjudication with Independent Administrative Courts.

An Economic Perspective of the Justice Digitalisation Process: The Questions of Efficiency and Equity

Why Do Plaintiffs Lose Appeals? Biased Trial Courts, Litigious Losers, or Low Trial Win Rates?

A new extraordinary means of appeal in the Polish criminal procedure: the basic principles of a fair trial and a complaint against a cassatory judgment

Rethinking and Reconstruction of the Connection Mechanism between Administrative Reconsideration and Administrative Litigation

Third-Party Punishment under Judicial Review: An Economic Experiment on the Effects of a Two-Tier Punishment System

Changes in damages when liability rules change: an empirical study on compensation for the time spent in pretrial detention