Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Commission v Italy (‘Trailers’) (Case C-110/05), EU:C:2009:66, [2009] ECR I-519, 10 February 2009. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O'Meara.
Chapter
Commission v Italy (‘Trailers’) (Case C-110/05), EU:C:2009:66, [2009] ECR I-519, 10 February 2009
Chapter
Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and others v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others (Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, [2014] ECR I-238, 8 April 2014
Essential Cases: EU Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and others v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others (Joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12), EU:C:2014:238, [2014] ECR I-238, 8 April 2014. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Noreen O'Meara.
Chapter
16. Exceptions to the free movement rules
Niamh Nic Shuibhne
This chapter examines when Member States can lawfully displace the obligations placed on them by free movement law. Free movement rights can be restricted under EU law in two ways. For discriminatory or distinctly applicable restrictive measures, a derogation ground expressly provided for in the TFEU must be engaged. For indirectly or non-discriminatory measures, that is, indistinctly applicable restrictive measures, if an overriding requirement relating to the public interest can be demonstrated the measure will be lawful. In both cases, the restriction also has to satisfy a proportionality test—that is, it is both appropriate and necessary for achieving the relevant public interest objective.
Chapter
13. Judicial review: unreasonableness and proportionality
This chapter explores irrationality, the second ground for judicial review identified by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service. It examines the meaning of this principle, its foundation upon the test of unreasonableness, and the approach that the courts have adopted since that case. Irrationality, and the notion of unreasonableness upon which it is based, is a particularly vague and ambiguous term, with a range of possible interpretations and meanings. This has meant that the courts have often considered judicial review claims, brought on the basis of irrationality, with varying degrees of caution, often employing the necessary tests with notable stringency. In part as a result of this, and in part also due to the increasing influence of European legal practices on the UK system, the test of proportionality has developed as a substantive ground for judicial review, often overlapping and sometimes conflicting with application of the irrationality doctrine.
Chapter
Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 72, European Court of Human Rights. This case examined the now-defunct provisions against gay people serving in the British military, and how using either unreasonableness or proportionality produced different outcomes. It also considers the contribution which a rights-based approach to legal questions, drawing on proportionality, can make to the development of law and policy. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, Court of Appeal. This case note considers the concept of unreasonableness as articulated in Wednesbury and reflects on its relationship to that of proportionality. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
8. Abuse of Discretion II
Mark Elliott and Jason Varuhas
This chapter examines grounds of judicial review that are substantive in two senses: it reduces the range of substantive options open to a decision-maker, or it involves judicial examination of the quality of the reasons for the decision itself, rather than the quality of the process adopted by the decision-maker. The chapter first considers the doctrine of reasonableness or rationality in administrative law before discussing the doctrine of proportionality and the notion of judicial deference in relation to variable intensity review. It also explores the role of the proportionality test in English law and the question of whether English courts are heading towards jettisoning the reasonableness doctrine in favour of utilizing proportionality in all relevant cases.
Chapter
3. The Transfer of Powers and Union Competences
This chapter examines the multifaceted and increasingly complex relationship between the European Union and its member states. The chapter begins with the transfer of sovereign powers and the democratic legitimacy of the Union and the establishment of constitutionalism within the Union. Section 3.4 considers the transfer of powers from the member states and the division and control of competences between the Union and the member states. In this context, the principles of subsidiarity and of proportionality are discussed, which are the political solutions to the very emotive questions about how power is shared between the Union and the member states.
Chapter
12. Grounds for judicial review Irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998
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 grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits-based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of Convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.
Chapter
7. Decision-Making and New Forms of Governance
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter introduces the debate over new modes of decision-making and governance in the EU, and provides an account of the apparent shift towards greater use of these over time. The language of ‘new’ forms of governance in the EU refers to the move away from reliance on hierarchical modes towards more flexible modes as the preferred method of governing. A number of examples of new governance instruments and methods are provided, in particular the ‘new approach to harmonization’ and the ‘open method of coordination’. A number of other EU governance reform initiatives related to the new governance debate are also discussed, such as the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, the ‘better regulation’ initiative, and the Commission White Paper on Governance and its follow-up. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues of new governance in relation to the UK post-Brexit.
Chapter
11. Abuse of Discretion
Sir William Wade, Christopher Forsyth, and Julian Ghosh
This chapter examines the sovereign principle that powers must be exercised reasonably and in good faith and on proper grounds—in other words, that they must not be abused. This is one of the twin pillars that uphold the structure of administrative law. Topics discussed include the justification for review on substantive grounds; the rule of reason; the principle of proportionality; categories of unreasonableness; good faith; and statutory reasonableness.
Chapter
10. Proprietary Estoppel
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter is concerned with proprietary estoppel. Proprietary estoppel is a means by which a party (B) can gain some protection against an owner of land (A), even if B has no contract with A and even if A has not formally given B a property right in relation to A’s land. Proprietary estoppel is therefore a means by which B can obtain an equitable interest in A’s land. It is noted that proprietary estoppel is very different from other forms of estoppel; so different that the term ‘estoppel’ is positively misleading. The chapter considers the requirements of a proprietary estoppel claim, including the role of unconscionability, how the courts determine the extent of any right arising through proprietary estoppel, and the impact of such rights on third parties.
Chapter
7. Decision-Making and New Forms of Governance
All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter introduces the debate over new modes of decision-making and governance in the EU, and provides an account of the apparent shift towards greater use of these over time. The language of ‘new’ forms of governance in the EU refers to the move away from reliance on hierarchical modes towards more flexible modes as the preferred method of governing. A number of examples of new governance instruments and methods are provided, in particular the ‘new approach to harmonization’ and the ‘open method of coordination’. A number of other EU governance reform initiatives related to the new governance debate are also discussed, such as the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, the ‘better regulation’ initiative, and the Commission White Paper on Governance and its follow-up. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues of new governance in relation to the UK post-Brexit.
Chapter
12. Grounds for judicial review
Irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998
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 grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits-based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review, where breach of Convention rights is alleged, is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.
Chapter
13. Substantive Grounds of Judicial Review
This chapter discusses the substantive grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, and proportionality. Illegality covers the following: excess of power; the relevant/irrelevant considerations doctrine; unlawful delegation of power; unlawful fettering of power; and the estoppel doctrine. Irrationality is also concerned with the substantive content of a government decision, but focuses on the political or moral rather than (in the strict sense) legal character of the decision. Proportionality review can be defined as a constitutional device that requires the courts to accept that the boundaries of moral consensus within which government bodies are confined are discernibly less broad in substantive terms than those that apply in respect of irrationality-based review.
Chapter
10. Judicial Review: The Grounds
This chapter introduces the nature and constitutional role of judicial review. It then examines the various grounds of review, which have been placed in three classes: illegality, procedural impropriety, and irrationality. The chapter also discusses the substantive aspect of legitimate expectations and the relationship between irrationality and proportionality in pure domestic law.
Chapter
17. Irrationality and Proportionality
Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non-Human Rights Act judicial review cases, but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.
Chapter
5. Derogations and Justifications
This chapter examines the specific derogations under Article 36 TFEU, the mandatory requirements developed by the Court, and the application of the principles of proportionality and fundamental rights. It considers the so-called ‘Mutual Recognition’ Regulation adopted as part of the Commission’s 2007 ‘Package on Internal Market for Goods’ and its revision by Regulation 2019/515.
Chapter
13. Free movement of natural persons and citizenship of the Union
Catherine Barnard
This chapter discusses EU law on the free movement of persons. It shows how the EU judiciary and legislature have responded to some of the challenges raised by EU migration. It highlights the following themes: the erosion of the requirement of an interstate element; how little it takes to establish an obstacle to free movement and thus a breach by the state of EU law; the need for the state to establish a justification in order to preserve state interests, but notes that what the state can do to protect that interest is curtailed by the principles of human rights and proportionality. It shows that the Court views cases on the free movement of natural persons through a citizenship lens and thus is more willing to embrace a human rights dimension than it would be in cases on free movement of legal persons.
