R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union: Three Competing Syllogisms

The Miller case concerned the constitutional requirements for the UK to give notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The parties made submissions in terms of two competing syllogisms. The Government argued that ministers, exercising Crown prerogative, had the power to give notice without statutory authorisation. The Applicants argued that the process required authorisation by Act of Parliament because the UK's withdrawal would deprive people of rights arising under EU law. However, a majority of the Supreme Court decided in favour of the Applicants based on a third and significantly different syllogism, based on the proposition that the European Communities Act had established EU law‐making and law‐interpreting institutions as new ‘sources of law’. This note assesses the three competing syllogisms and examines the constitutional significance of the majority's proposition that these new EU sources of law were integrated into UK domestic law without disrupting the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.     

Post-‘Brexit’ Financial Governance: Which Dispute Settlement Framework Should Be Utilised?

This contribution to the ongoing Brexit discussions addresses topical legal and regulatory issues in the post-Brexit policy debate, especially the questions surrounding the important area of financial governance and dispute resolution. Specifically, a number of future UK/EU legal disputes with respect to financial services may emerge post-Brexit. The article examines the UK's track record at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and discusses some likely future challenges. It then considers which institutional framework should be used for resolving disagreements. The article assesses the strengths and weaknesses of three potential models (the proposed Swiss/EU institutional framework; the EFTA ‘docking’ option; and the WTO system) and provides an original cross-model evaluation. It also discusses the associated design challenges that EU and UK negotiators may encounter in the attempt to devise a post-Brexit dispute settlement system.     

BREXIT,democracy and the rule of law

This article employs the image of the antisyzygy, the yoking of opposites, as an analytical tool to understand the dynamic and unresolved tensions built into the very idea of the European Union. It describes the EU as a forming a supranational constitutional space which does not supersede nation states, but instead seeks to preserve their specific identities while promoting and protecting the fundamental values they are called upon to embody as liberal constitutional democracies. The article then critically examines constitutional developments in the UK subsequent to its decision to leave the European Union and suggests that, paradoxically, it may have been the European Union which held the post-War post-imperial United Kingdom together and, without it and outside it, we may anticipate the UK's imminent dissolution into its original constituent nations – Brexit leads inexorably to BreUK-up.     

Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice

This article argues that the EU Charter’s dignity provisions must be given a specific, expansive European meaning that underpins the importance the EU places on fundamental rights protection as a principle EU value. To this end, the article examines the EU Charter provisions on dignity and critically analyses the case law before the EU Charter had full legal effect and after it did. It finishes with looking at three areas in which the potential for an expansive interpretation of dignity could help bring the EU closer to its people and fully respect and protect dignity: asylum, criminal justice and sexual orientation.     

Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.     

Of Austerity,Human Rights and International Institutions

Austerity measures have led to the denial of social rights and widespread socio‐economic malaise across Europe. In the case of countries subjected to conditionality imposed by international institutions, the resultant harms have highlighted a range of responsibility gaps. Two legal developments come together to expose these gaps: Greece's argument in a series of cases under the European Social Charter that it was not responsible for the impact on rights brought about by austerity measures as it was only giving effect to its other international obligations as agreed with the Troika; and the concern to emerge from the Pringle case before the European Court of Justice that European Union (EU) institutions could do outside of the EU what they could not do within the EU ‐‐disregard the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That the Commission and the European Central Bank were in time answerable to international organisations set up to provide financial support adds an additional layer of responsibility to consider. Taking Greece as a case study, this article addresses the imperative of having international institutions respect human rights.     

One law to rule them all? The reach of EU data protection law after the Google v CNIL case

Google v CNIL is, arguably, one of the landmark cases of EU data protection law and it has been an important development regarding its territorial reach. The judgment's findings in this regard have been controversial and have led to much discussion about their legitimacy and potential repercussions. This paper examines two aspects of this case. First, it considers the holdings of this judgment regarding the global application of EU law in relation to international law and sovereignty. This article argues that though EU decision-makers might have a degree of ‘data imperialism’ in their thinking, this judgment is not at odds with neither international law nor sovereignty. Second, the paper examines the methodology of the Court and the role it accorded to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU– an aspect that many commentators overlook. In this regard, I argue that the Court's methodology was problematic and that it failed to duly consider the role of the Charter, thus fragmenting EU law.     

Emitting Uncertainty: How Brexit Might Affect Emissions Trading Worldwide

After the UK referendum that voted to leave the EU in 2016, much question has surrounded what implications this decision might have. This article will discuss the referendum's environmental effects, mainly in the area of global emission reduction strategies. Part I describes the European Union and the emissions trading system that has developed within it. Part II considers what effect Brexit might have on the current emissions trading regime and emissions trading globally. Part III discusses the Paris Agreement and what impact the referendum might have on these obligations. Part IV contemplates the current market conditions regarding the purchase of solar PV from China, and what influence the UK's renegotiation of its trade deals might have on the renewable energy industry.     

Towards a common standard of protection of the right to housing in Europe through the charter of fundamental rights

The trend towards the financialisation of housing since the 1980s and the global financial crisis exposed a dramatic lacuna in the legal protection of the right to housing. Yet, the right to housing features not only in national and international human rights instruments, but also in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Charter rights are increasingly finding expression in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In particular, drawing on the Charter, the CJEU's interpretation of EU consumer law is moving towards a recognition of housing rights as inherent components of consumer protection. On the basis of such developments, this article examines whether there is scope to extend this human rights approach to new areas – namely, to the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014) – a major EU harmonising measure – and to the work of EU institutions now responsible for banking supervision. The article concludes that, if guided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the case law of the CJEU and the practice of supranational banking supervision could significantly enhance the protection of the right to housing, both at EU and Member State level.     

Opening up personal data protection: A conceptual controversy

The existence of a fundamental right to the protection of personal data in European Union (EU) law is nowadays undisputed. Established in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000, it is increasingly permeating EU secondary law, and is expected to play a key role in the future EU personal data protection landscape. The right's reinforced visibility has rendered manifest the co-existence of two possible and contrasting interpretations as to what it come to mean. If some envision it as a primarily permissive right, enabling the processing of such data under certain conditions, others picture it as having a prohibitive nature, implying that any processing of data is a limitation of the right, be it legitimate or illegitimate. This paper investigates existing tensions between different understandings of the right to the protection of personal data, and explores the assumptions and conceptual legacies underlying both approaches. It traces their historical lineages, and, focusing on the right to personal data protection as established by the EU Charter, analyses the different arguments that can ground contrasted readings of its Article 8. It also reviews the conceptualisations of personal data protection as present in the literature, and finally contrasts all these perspectives with the construal of the right by the EU Court of Justice.     

The EU and Issues of Human Rights Protection: Same Solutions to More Acute Problems?

Academic literature repeatedly calls for the EU's accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (hereinafter Convention 1 ). Similarly, the Lisbon Treaty provides that the EU must accede to the Convention. [Correction made here after initial online publication.] This might seem odd as the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ECJ 1 ) has over the years developed abundant case‐law on human rights protection in the EU, and the EU has not so long ago adopted a, albeit non‐binding, catalogue of human rights (the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (hereinafter Charter)). But after all these years, cases, and Treaty amendments, the EU is in fact going back to the ECJ's 1996 landmark opinion which recommended the EU's formal accession to the Convention, 1 already proposed in 1979 by the Commission. 1 One reason for this might be that, in the meantime, human rights issues have multiplied in the application of EU law, especially in areas such as the Second and Third Pillars where—at least initially—fewer human rights protection guarantees were foreseen.     

The Horizontal Effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: Rediscovering the Reasons for Horizontality

This article analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Horizontal effect has been an integral part of the Union's application of fundamental rights, especially in the field of equality. However, the codification of fundamental rights in the Charter raises important questions as to how horizontal effect will continue to apply in the EU, particularly in the aftermath of the Court's reticent rulings in cases such as Dominguez and Association de Médiation Sociale. This article argues that the emphasis on prior approaches to horizontal effect in recent rulings fails to address the profound constitutional issues that the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights catalogue raises, which concern the role of private responsibility within the developing constitutional order of the European Union. It therefore calls for a more systematically theorised approach towards the horizontal application of fundamental rights under the Charter framework.     

Between Immigration and Policing: Cross Recognition

Abstract: This article looks at the development of the UK's policies towards asylum‐seekers who are to be returned to some country other than the one where they fear persecution (its ‘safe third country’ policy). The Dublin Convention of 1990 addressed some of the problems which this policy created, but left others unresolved. Domestic legislation has progressively reduced the opportunities for challenging safe third‐country removals, especially to an EU state. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law has generated new possibilities for challenging safe third‐country decisions where removal might damage physical or mental health. Articles 3 and 8 have been invoked in particular. The Dublin machinery established ‘rules’ to decide which member state was responsible for considering the asylum claim and the procedure to be followed. The article examines why the UK courts have said that these provisions are not justiciable in the English courts. Finally the article considers whether the experience with Dublin provides any useful guidance as to the approach that will be taken to European arrest warrants and extradition requests.     

Charter and Enlargement

Current debates about the contents, status, and the future role of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights should have a stronger 'enlargement dimension': the constitutionalisation of Europe (with the Charter as its key element) and the EU enlargement should be seen as two interrelated (and, possibly, mutually supportive) phenomena rather than as two separate challenges which must be approached one at a time. There are two main aspects to this relationship. First, the Charter may be seen as a yardstick by which the human rights credentials of the candidate states will be tested. Second (the central focus of this article), one may ask whether the candidate states, once involved in the debate about the constitutional future of Europe, will bring any constitutional insights which may affect the articulation of Charter rights. It is argued, against the background of candidate states' recent experience of constitution-making, that these insights should be embraced rather than feared, and that the current member states should resist a temptation of adopting a paternalistic approach towards the candidate states as participants in the European constitutional debate.     

Making the grade: the UK,citizenship and human rights education

This article focuses on the new ‘Citizenship’ component of the National Curriculum in England and the National Priorities for Education in Scotland. It argues that the principal elements in these initiatives should have been incorporated into the education system some time ago in order to conform to the UK's international obligations. The international requirements will be examined with the citizenship elements being measured against these requirements. It will be concluded that even should the UK succeed in implementing the full citizenship agenda, compliance with the full range of international requirements is not guaranteed.     

Acquisition‐Hungry Premier Swallows RHM*

Premier Foods was successful in becoming the UK's largest grocery supplier in early 2007 after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the UK competition authority, approved its £1.2 billion purchase of RHM. The merger means that iconic brands often found in British kitchens, such as Hovis breads, Lyons cakes, Bird's custard, Branston pickle, and dozens of other well‐known products, will now be manufactured by the same food group.

Gavin Murphy examines the OFT's merger assessment.     

An injunction to prevent access to copyright infringing content,or perhaps not yet: UK perspective

In 2010, the United Kingdom High Court found an indexing company liable for the copyright infringements of its users when they downloaded materials from the Newzbin website. While its servers were located within UK jurisdiction and the majority of infringing content was in claimants' repertoire of films, the website was forced to cease operation. However, shortly after the ruling, it is believed to have moved its servers offshore and resumed operation from the same location, still accessible to UK users but beyond reach of the UK law. This prompted the case, Twentieth Century Fox & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc (2011), by the film studios to seek an injunction against one of UK's internet service providers, to force it to block its users' access to the Newzbin2 website. With the order granted and more UK ISPs also required to block their users' access to infringing content in Dramatico Entertainment Ltd & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors (2012), evidence also suggest that technical possibilities exist to render such a blockade ineffective. Beside debates on conflicting interests and proportionality, this paper argues that it may still, in reality, prove harder to achieve a stricter regulation.     

Constitutions,Constitutionalism, and the European Union

The institutional reforms of the EU, coupled with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, have fuelled the debate about a European Constitution. This paper begins by examining the nature of constitutions and constitutionalism. The focus then turns to the EU itself. It is argued that the Community has indeed been transformed into a constitutional legal order, and that the arguments to the contrary are not convincing. This does not however mean that the EU has, or should have, a European Constitution cognisable as such which draws together the constitutional articles of the Treaties, together with the constitutional principles articulated by the European Court of Justice. The difficulties with this strategy are examined in detail, and the conclusion is that we should not at present pursue this course. It would be better to draw on the valuable work done by the European University Institute in its recent study in order to simplify and consolidate the Treaties.     

Gender Equality on the Boards of EU Companies: Between Economic Efficiency,Fundamental Rights and Democratic Legitimisation of Economic Governance

Currently, there is a large gap between the proportion of employed and well‐educated women and those sitting on the boards of EU companies. This gap should be significantly diminished because it is mandated by the EU fundamental right of equality between women and men (Article 23 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), and by the need for democratic legitimisation of the EU and of its economic governance (Articles 2 and 3(3) TEU). However, the Commission's proposal for a directive on improving the gender balance among non‐executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges does not constitute an appropriate legal solution for this problem because it infringes the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. There are many other instruments than compulsory gender quotas that can be used by EU institutions to promote more gender‐balanced boards of EU companies. The potential of such measures has not been utilised yet in full.     

Reforming the United Kingdom Constitution: Law,Convention, Soft Law

The Governance of Britain Green Paper continues the programme of constitutional reform begun in 1997, and appears to reinforce the juridification of the UK's constitution. Nevertheless, several key reforms will be implemented not by legislation, but by creating new conventions. This article argues that such ‘declared’ conventions are best understood as a form of constitutional ‘soft law’, which attempt to influence constitutional behaviour rather than generating binding norms. Applying a regulatory analysis, it then argues that the case for a soft, rather than hard law approach to constitutional reform is weaker than its widespread use in the UK suggests. Finally, the article challenges the thesis that the political constitution is being replaced by a legal constitution, arguing that the government's attitude to constitutional reform still exhibits basic characteristics of political constitutionalism. Moreover, there is more to contemporary constitutional developments than a bipolar contest between political and legal constitutionalism.