scholarly journals Brexit: A Boon or a Curse for Animals Used in Scientific Procedures?

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1547
Author(s):  
Rachel Dunn

The UK has long been hailed as one of the world leaders in animal welfare. Within the UK, animals used in experiments are provided some protection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). This Act was impacted by European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU, and subsequently the ASPA was updated to reflect any changes required. While the Directive is very similar to the protection the UK already afforded to animals used in experiments, there were some advances that the Directive provided that were not present in the ASPA. On paper, the changes introduced were promising but may not have been achieved in practice. In 2016, the British public voted to leave the EU, which presented concerns over animal welfare protection and legislation provided by EU law. With the completion of Brexit, there may be an opportunity to diverge from the Directive to advance protection for animals used in experiments. This article explores the influence that the EU has had on animal experimentation in the UK, the potential implications of Brexit on the welfare of animals used in experiments and suggests ways in which this protection can be progressed, with potentially more freedom to amend or introduce legislation to do so.

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.


2021 ◽  
pp. 21-47
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan

This chapter sets out the basic constitutional framework, under EU law, governing the withdrawal of a Member State. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union recognizes the sovereign right of any State to leave the EU and sets out a process for agreeing the terms of an orderly departure. But Brexit also required the EU and the UK to undertake extensive internal preparations, to ensure their own legal systems were ready for the UK’s departure. Moreover, Article 50 itself is drafted in only brief and sketchy terms, leaving many important decisions about Brexit to be worked out in practice. And EU law allows for other final outcomes to the withdrawal process—including a ‘no deal Brexit’; or the UK’s right to ‘revoke and remain’ under the Wightman ruling.


Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino

This chapter focuses on the current interaction between European Union and UK law. EU law is currently a source of UK law. However, the relationship between the two regimes is expected to change in the future as a consequence of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 stipulates that the European Communities Act 1972 will be ‘repealed on exit day’, which would be 29 March 2019 provided that the two-year period since Article 50 TEU was triggered is not extended. Once the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed, EU law will cease to be a source of UK law. No major immediate changes to the national competition legislation are to be expected, but future reforms could distance the UK system from the EU rules.


Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 355-396
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Robert Thomas

This chapter focuses on the constitutional implications of the UK’s membership of the European Union and the constitutional implications of its exit from the EU (or ‘Brexit’). The chapter examines how EU law was accommodated within the UK legal system during the period of the UK’s membership of the EU, and in particular considers the consequences of the primacy of EU law for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The chapter also considers the extent to which lessons learned about the UK constitution as a result of EU membership will remain relevant now that the UK has left the EU.


2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.


Author(s):  
Alisdair Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare

This chapter discusses international sources of law. Conventions and treaties are the primary sources of international law. International law also relies on custom, that is to say informal rules that have been commonly agreed over a period of time. The United Kingdom joined the (then) European Economic Community (EEC) in 1972. As part of the conditions for joining the UK agreed that EEC (now EU) law would become automatically part of the law of the United Kingdom. The principal treaties governing the EU are the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Disputes are adjudicated by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Whilst the UK has recently voted to leave the EU, it will not do so for at least two years, meaning EU law will remain part of UK law. The United Kingdom is also a member of the Council of Europe, which has issued a number of international Conventions that impact the English Legal System.


Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 154-202
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott

This chapter explains the process and significance of the UK’s membership in the EU and sets out the authorities underpinning the supremacy of EU law, accepted and established prior to the UK’s accession. It then explores cases—from the early 1970s to the present day—which consider the ways in which EU membership has impacted on Parliament’s sovereignty. Following this, the chapter explores the legal and political landscape of the UK’s departure from the EU. It considers the process through which Brexit is happening and the manner in which the constitution will provide the foundation for a working relationship with the EU in the future and establish a stable legal system in the UK post-Brexit, looking particularly at the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 261-286
Author(s):  
Tamara K Hervey

Cases involving patients such as Mrs Yvonne Watts, who travelled from the UK to France for a hip replacement to avoid a ‘waiting list’ in the UK, relying on rights in European Union (EU) law, attract high levels of media attention. While the vast majority of patients are either unwilling or unable to travel across borders to receive health care, it is clear that some patients are seeking health care abroad. Although data on patient mobility within the EU are significantly limited, nevertheless, a relatively steady, small but not insignificant number of patients are moving across borders within the EU to receive health care. This paper considers the current legal framework on the rights in EU law of those patients who seek health care in another Member State. As the right to seek private health care abroad is (largely) non-contentious, and has been a well-established feature of EU law since at least the mid 1980s, the focus of this paper is on publicly or quasi-publicly funded health care.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1591-1622
Author(s):  
Mihail Vatsov

The preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is instrumental for the so-called “judicial dialogue” within the European Union (EU). The goals of the preliminary reference procedure are to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law and to contribute to the harmonious development of the law throughout the EU. It was through the preliminary reference procedure to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the principles of direct effect and supremacy were developed. It took many years before the first request by a Constitutional Court was sent to the CJEU. So far, the Constitutional Courts of Belgium, Austria, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and most recently Slovenia, have sent requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU. By far the most active of these in sending requests has been the Belgian Court. The Portuguese Constitutional Court has indicated that it can request preliminary rulings from the CJEU but is yet to do so. In the other Member States (MS) with Constitutional Courts, references have not been sent yet, although worthy occasions in terms of EU-law-related cases have occurred, as also observed in various contributions in this special issue. These MSs include Bulgaria.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Michael Connolly

On the 13 July of this year, the UK Government published the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, 1 more commonly called the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. Aside from the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (and with it the proposed ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice), the Bill’s purpose is to ‘convert the acquis’ of EU law and preserve any UK law implementing EU law.2 This will include ‘workers’ rights’ and with it their employment discrimination rights.3 The efficacy of such a move will be limited if the British judges fail to adopt the same interpretations of these rights as their counterparts in the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Over the years of Britain’s membership, there have been many references to Luxembourg to clarify the meaning of particular aspects of the discrimination provisions, with the Court generally giving a more liberal interpretation than the domestic courts had suggested would be their preference. One element of the law largely untouched by this process is the objective justification defence to claims of indirect discrimination. This is because the domestic courts have maintained a fiction that their interpretation is consistent with the EU formula. For no apparent reason, the domestic courts have reworded the EU formula while labelling it as being no different. This presents a major challenge for the Bill. It would be all too easy for Parliament to assume all is well with this aspect of workers’ rights, especially when the judges tell them so. Using a handful of cases, this article exposes the shortfalls within the domestic law and suggests some solutions. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the Bill (which no doubt is due for many amendments), but to focus on one important aspect of discrimination law, both pre- and post-Brexit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document