1-20 of 85 Results

  • Keyword: proportionality x
Clear all

Chapter

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 homosexuality 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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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

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 homosexuality in the British military, and how using either unreasonabless or proportionality produced different outcomes. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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

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

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

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

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, if a derogation ground expressly provided for in the TFEU can be engaged. For indirectly or non-discriminatory, that is, indistinctly applicable restrictive measures, if an overriding requirement relating to the public interest that is capable of justifying a restriction of the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty can be demonstratedIn 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

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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 from author Thomas Webb.

Chapter

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

This chapter is concerned with the principle of equality, otherwise termed non-discrimination, as it arises under common law, EU law, and under the ECHR. The Wednesbury threshold of unreasonableness applies to common law challenges while the proportionality test will be applied to challenges based on a breach of EU law or of the ECHR. At common law the doctrine has been recognised as an important ground for challenging decisions if it is alleged that discretionary choices have been tainted by discrimination. Under EU law, the principle of equality is found at a number of different levels that include general principles of law, the Treaty, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The chapter also shows how challenges on grounds of direct or indirect discrimination may fall within the ambit of Article 14 of the ECHR. The discussion is informed by detailed analysis of relevant case law.

Chapter

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 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.

Chapter

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 severely 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.

Chapter

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.