Role of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Estonia in the European Union

2005 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Eerik Kergandberg
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sobotta

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.


Author(s):  
Laura Šāberte

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 613-648
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland

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).


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Frank Cranmer

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Sholahuddin Al-Fatih

Post-reform of the role of judicial institution is run by two institutions namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The duties and authorities of the two institutions are regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 and the act that addresses the three institutions more specifically. Several powers possessed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, one of them is the authority to judicial review. The Constitutional Court is authorized to review the act on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, while the Supreme Court is authorized to review under the Act on the above legislation.The unfairness of the regulatory testing function is feared to trigger bureaucratic inefficiency. Based on data released by the Supreme Court Clerk, it was recorded during 2016 that the Supreme Court received 18,514 cases, including the Hak Uji Materi (HUM) subject to legislation under the Act. While the number of cases of judicial review of the Constitutional Court in 2016-2017 amounted to only 332 cases. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a bureaucratic reform and provide new ideas related to the model of one court of judicial review in Indonesia. So that in this paper will be discussed deeply about problematic of judicial review in Indonesia and the authority of the Constitutional Court to review the act under one roof with SIJURI mechanism.


LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priyanka Anand

The area of this research paper is that the Supreme Court has been using minimalist strategies in dealing with such cases, and that the use of this approach is opportunistic and escapist rather than either the expression of a well-theorized understanding of the role of courts in the Indian polity, or a reflection of broader policy rationales for adopting such a strategy. In this article, I will first explain the concept of minimalism and then go on to analyse how the Supreme Court’s decision on terror related cases reflect the use of a minimalist strategy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
David Feldman

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5(160) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Dziedzic

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document