June–September 2019

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Frank Cranmer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
The Supreme Court

On 9 September, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 received Royal Assent and Parliament was prorogued until 14 October. The prorogation was challenged in the courts both in England and Wales and in Scotland, and a strong Divisional Court of Queen's Bench and the Inner House of the Court of Session came to opposite conclusions as to its legality. The judgments were appealed to the Supreme Court, and on 24 September an eleven-judge bench handed down a unanimous judgment in the conjoined cases of Miller and Cherry.

22. A Revolution by Due Process of Law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 613-648
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process Of Law

This chapter analyses the conduct and constitutional implications of the United Kingdom’s proposed withdrawal from the European Union. The chapter begins by examining the legal basis, conduct, and result of the withdrawal referendum. The chapter then assesses the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the first of the two Miller judgments. It continues with a discussion on the extreme positions of ‘hard brexit’ and ‘soft brexit’ and the assesses the significance of the results of the unexpected 2017 general election. The chapter goes on to examine the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the subsequent fall of the May government and its replacement by an administration led by Boris Johnson. In the final part of the chapter the Miller (No 2) and Cherry litigation and its political aftermath are discussed in full, with a particular focus laid on the controversial way in which the Supreme Court deployed the notion of ‘justiciability’ in its judgment in Miller (No 2).

PULLING A TRIGGER OR STARTING A JOURNEY? BREXIT IN THE SUPREME COURT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
David Feldman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

FOLLOWING a referendum on 23 June 2016 in which 52% of voters (38% of the total electorate) had expressed a preference for the UK to leave the EU, the Government announced that it would start the process of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”), by notifying the European Council of the UK's decision, exercising the Government's prerogative power to conduct foreign relations. A number of legal challenges were fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. In R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Birnie and others intervening) [2017] UKSC 5; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 583 after an expedited hearing, the Court decided two issues: (1) whether the Government could exercise its power under the royal prerogative to give notice, or needed an Act of Parliament to authorise the giving of notice; and (2) whether the Government required the consent of devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before giving notice or introducing to Parliament a Bill authorising the giving of notice. The Court sat unprecedentedly with all 11 serving members. On issue (1), the Court, by an 8–3 majority, held that an Act of Parliament would be required in order to authorise the giving of notice. On issue (2), the Court unanimously held that there was no legal requirement for consent by the devolved institutions.

scholarly journals Hiszpania: postanowienie Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 9 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie specjalnej o numerze 20907/2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5(160) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Dziedzic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Prison Sentence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court ruled on the legal consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras – the supporter of the independence of Catalonia convicted of sedition and misappropriation of public funds. Mr O. Junqueras was elected Member of the European Parliament while he was in provisional detention, but after the trial stage of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been opened. The CJEU judgment concerned the scope of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs. The Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the CJEU interpretation, that Mr Junqueras enjoyed the immunity. However, the prison sentence passed on him deprived him of his MEP status and therefore a request to waive the immunity in this particular case was not applicable.

scholarly journals A European Story

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 110 ◽  
pp. 74-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Francq
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Community ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Supreme Court

The decision of the Supreme Court in RJR Nabisco v. European Community is the culmination of sixteen years of litigation, preceded by years of investigation. From a European perspective, the decision can only be read as a disappointment: “we” tried, “we” lost. But beyond the frustration with the outcome, this European take on the RJR decision will focus on two questions: (i) why did the European Community decide to bring proceedings in the United States in the first place; and (ii) what would happen in the reverse scenario, if a foreign public authority or a private plaintiff were to bring suit in the European Union? Answering these two questions casts RJR in a slightly different light and offers an interesting picture of the wider political and regulatory context in the European Union.

scholarly journals THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IN MILLER: IN SEARCH OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Formal Process ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIn R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Supreme Court of the UK (1) held that the UK Government had no prerogative power to initiate the formal process whereby the UK will withdraw from the EU and (2) declined to recognise any requirement that the devolved legislatures’ consent be obtained in respect of legislation authorising the Government to commence the withdrawal process. This article critically examines Miller, arguing that the majority's analysis veers between unwarranted muscularity in relation to the prerogative issue and unnecessary conservatism as regards the devolution issue. The article goes on to argue that while the majority judgment's restrictive approach to the prerogative may be viewed as a progressive victory for constitutional principle, such an evaluation can be sustained only if a set of relatively traditional constitutional premises are adopted to begin with. The article also contends that the general approach adopted by the majority is problematic, given its willingness to invoke arguments of constitutional principle without adequately engaging with questions about what the pertinent principles are, and argues that such an intellectually lackadaisical mode of constitutional adjudication is to be deprecated.

Compliance with European Environmental Law—Deficiencies and Approaches: The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sobotta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Considerations

The article discusses the contribution of the ECJ to the reduction of compliance deficiencies with regard to European environmental law. The Court is not a specialised environmental court but the supreme court of the European multilevel legal system. Therefore its contribution is primarily characterised by a concern for effective and uniform application of EU law in general while specific environmental considerations do not figure as prominently.

scholarly journals The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-172
Author(s):  
Václav Stehlík ◽  
David Sehnálek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

scholarly journals Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (20) ◽  
pp. 160-187
Author(s):  
Laura Šāberte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Court ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Objective Investigation

In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document