‘EU judges may be asked to decide whether the intelligence services’ bulk collection of email data in order to prevent terrorist attacks is legal.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘After Brexit, the public face of criminal justice will look much the same as it does now. The UK has resisted many of the European Union’s moves towards harmonisation of substantive criminal law and procedure, and it is unlikely to use its new-found freedom from the restraints of EU law to decriminalise things like child pornography, cybercrime and people trafficking. The EU’s greatest impact on criminal justice has been through the multiple agreements and instruments that facilitate the detection, investigation and prosecution of such crimes as terrorism, people trafficking, child pornography, drug-smuggling, cybercrime and fraud across the EU. The best known of these is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), implemented in 2004.’
London Review of Books, 18th May 2017
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
‘“General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper’s charter.’
The Guardian, 21st December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘I’m glad if it was the Lord Chief Justice’s concern about the reversibility or otherwise of the Article 50 procedure which catalyzed the current debate on whether the Article 50 litigation needs a reference to the Court of Justice, as has been rumoured, but on the face of last week’s judgment it seems that the parties at least were in agreement on the point after all: it is not (they say) reversible: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, para 10 (hereinafter “Miller”). However, I believe that there is a far simpler, and so far as I can see compulsory, route from the Supreme Court to Luxembourg in this matter, assuming that the Crown does indeed appeal today’s ruling to that court, and that is that (a) the case turns on the interpretation of the phrase “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” from Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”), and (b) interpretation of the Treaty, or indeed any EU Law, is the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The case of a 68-year-old transgender woman who was refused the female state pension at the age of 60 because she chose to stay married has been referred by the supreme court to judges in Europe “for their guidance”.’
The Guardian, 10th August 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Judges have begun hearing a government appeal against a ruling that its surveillance legislation is unlawful.’
BBC News, 22nd October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th April 2015
‘A pregnant French woman, who was denied benefits in the UK because she was not considered to be “a worker”, had been entitled to the payments, the European Court of Justice has ruled. Jessy Saint Prix gave up work as a teaching assistant and was denied income support. Non-UK residents are not entitled to the benefit – unless they have acquired the status of worker in EU law. The case now returns to the Supreme Court for a final ruling.’
The Guardian, 19th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The UK could face legal proceedings and substantial fines from the European
Commission as a result of its failure to meet air pollution limits, an expert
has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Supreme Court has taken the UK’s lack of compliance with EU legislation, Directive 2008/50 (limiting the amount of nitrogen dioxide in air) much more seriously than the courts below. It has made a declaration that the UK is in breach and has referred questions of interpretation concerning the Directive and remedies to the CJEU.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Disparity reference to ECJ
Regina (Horvath) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Court of Appeal
“The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to review a reference by the High Court to the Court of Justice of the European Communities but if unable with complete confidence to resolve the issue, should uphold the reference.”
The Times, 30th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2024