Judicial Review of UK and EU System

Judicial Review of UK and EU System

Introduction

Judicial review constitutes an important aspect of any legal system operating under the rule of law. This paper provides a comprehensive account of judicial review in EU law by assessing the vast and complex case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in this area and the academic opinion which has accompanied its rulings over the years. It questions the prevalent view in academic literature that the Court's restrictive approach to allowing individuals direct access to the Community Courts, in case of a challenge against normative acts, amounts to a denial of an effective remedy.[1]

The system of judicial review in the European Union. Judicial Review in EU Law will be of great interest to academics, and given its detailed discussion of case-law of the ECJ it will also appeal to postgraduate students of European law. Dealing with an important aspect of legal practice, it will be invaluable reading for practitioners in law firms and officials working in local, regional and central government. [2]

Judicial Review of UK System

In the vast majority of judicial review cases, the key issue for the courts will be whether a public body has lawfully exercised powers that have been given to it by statute. In broad terms, this is consonant with the reality of much of government in the UK; that is, public bodies are entrusted with public law powers and duties given to them by statutes that have been enacted either by the Westminster Parliament and/or by the devolved legislatures. However, to the extent that statute is where most public law powers and duties originate, some decision-makers exercise powers that affect the public as a result of historical accident and in the absence of any statutory authorisation. While such decision-makers may be subject to control by some other mechanism - for instance, through a self-regulatory body - there have been some areas in which non-statutory decisions have apparently been unimpeachable in the courts. To avoid that outcome, the courts have recast such decisions as public law in form and they have drawn upon “the public interest” when doing so[3]. These cases are noteworthy not just because they have marked an expansion of judicial review into new types of disputes but also because they have seen the courts elaborate upon the nature of the “public interest” that arose on the facts. As is well-known in debates about the meaning of the public interest, the “public interest” is a term that is both vague and potentially value-laden, and its use in other contexts has been much criticised for its lack of transparency. However, by linking the “public interest” in Kirkpatrick and City Hotel to concrete considerations, the courts have gone some way towards giving content to the “public interest”. The case law can in that sense be regarded as more transparent than not.[4]

Judicial Review of EU System

The Court of Justice of the European Union enforces EU law. In areas covered by EU law, it ...