This research essay will also make a best effort to deliberate about the European Court usage of legitimate expectations to enforce a minimal standard of treatment for individuals without infringing the public interest aims in administration.
Legitimate expectations inflict a responsibility to perform fairly, to respect reasonable expectations raised by the demeanour of a public authority. Protectable interest may demand procedural fairness since the verdict or the decision may jeopardise the applicant’s interest irrespective of the previous demeanour of the public authority. The safeguard of legitimate expectations offers consistency and certainty in administration, which is divergent from the infliction of procedural fairness to a decision which may impact an individual’s concern or interest. 2
Legitimate expectation deals with the affiliation between the individual and the public administration. It tries to solve the fundamental conflict between the desire to safeguard the individual’s faith in expectations raised by administrative demeanour and the necessity for administrators to practice changing policy objectives. This doctrine connotes the anticipations raised as a result of administrative demeanour may have legal ramifications. Either the administration must honour those anticipations or offer compelling reasons why the public interest must take precedence. This doctrine, therefore, deals with magnitude to which an individual’s anticipations may be protected in the background of a change of policy, which tends to sabotage them. Further, it is the duty of the administrative court to decide the degree to which the individual’s anticipation can be adapted within the changing policy objectives.3
The safeguard given to legitimate expectations, a standard which is the key to EU administrative law is directly linked to the concept of the legal certainty. It concerns with a scenario that