This essay will analyse the impact of EU law on the English constitution<\/a>. Which mention: how the EU law applies to UK; Judicial review referring to Human Rights; The UK constitution and the sovereignty;<\/p>\n \u201cMembership of the European Union and the Council of Europe has undermined the UK Constitution to such an extent that the UK Parliament is no longer sovereign. It will be good to return to the traditional means of overseeing the work of government.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A constitution is the rules and The law come from the parliament The parliament main job is to The public law concerns with the By the European EU The EU\u2019s standard decision-making is proceeded by the The European Commission also consults interested European Community example: Case-Laws LJ in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195, paras 62-64[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Parliament Sovereignty make For example: R v Secretary of State for Transport<\/a>, ex parte Factortame (No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603 \u201cThe applicants were companies with Spanish interests who had previously enjoyed fishing rights entitling them to fish against UK quotas under the Common Fisheries Policy. Under the 1988 Act, which made registration of such rights compulsory, F and O were no longer eligible because of their Spanish connections (s.14(1)). F and O applied for judicial review to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the 1988 Act because they contravened European law. The House of Lords held that the Queen’s Bench Division had exceeded its powers in granting interim relief against S, as there was no jurisdiction in existence to enable the making of such an order against the Crown. The House of Lords then referred a question to the European Court of Justice about the relative status of English and European law. The European Court ruled that in cases concerning community law, where the only barrier preventing a national court from granting interim relief was the existence of a national rule, then the national court must set aside that rule[8]<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Parliament confers power to the public bodies (anybody or Like in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Judicial review also can be used to challenge public Lord Hoffmann said<\/strong>: \u201cIn the great case Case of violation of Human Rights<\/strong>: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board<\/a> [2015] UKSC 11 (James This was the case in which the Supreme Court reacted to the \u201cchanging paradigm of the doctor-patient Case<\/strong>: Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary The secretary of state appealed against a declaration that the State These cases both where mention about in The statement above is talking about UK not [1]<\/a> A dictionary of law (8th edn, 2015) [2]<\/a> Adam Tomkins, John Millar Professor [3]<\/a>Joshua Rozenberg, legal comentador \u00ab [4]<\/a> \u201cEU law\u201d \u00ab [5]<\/a> Westlaw, \u00abhttps:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad69f8e0000015f5e2efc89a02c207b&docguid=ICF306110E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=ICF306110E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=226&crumb-action=append&context=15&resolvein=true\u00bb<\/a> <\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Dicey\u2019s [7]<\/a> A dictionary of law (8th edn, 2015) [8]<\/a> R. v\n
UK Constitution <\/h2>\n
\npractices exercised by the functions of the organs of the state and UK is
\nunwritten constitution which it consists of act of parliaments diversified
\ndocuments.<\/p>\n
\nwho make statutes plus the Delegated Legislature and their departments of
\nministers. Written law are in addition to the common law and equity (ex: case-
\nEarl of oxford\u2019s 1615) and the European community law. <\/p>\n
\nlegislate. After careful consideration
\nvia debates, laws are enacted which are considered for the betterment of the
\ncountry. And they have a process which consist in pass the law both in the
\nHouse of Commons and the House of Lords (they both must agree), and the monarch
\n(the queen) signs and becomes an act of parliament. <\/p>\n
\nfunctions of the body part of central and local government. The rule of law is
\nvery important concept for the constitution according to which the government
\nhas no arbitrary authority over the citizen, signifying that the law is supreme.[1]<\/a><\/p>\nEU law<\/h2>\n
\nCommunities Act 1972, the EU law applies to UK now (in 1972) and in the future Before 1972 the UK was sovereign, but the UK
\nParliament decided to give away some of that power (like the other countries
\ndid and they called European Community). That means that on some issues, the EU
\ninstitutions in Brussels and not MPs in Westminster, will have the
\nauthoritative statement, so EU legislations are automatically binding UK law.
\n[2]<\/a><\/p>\n
\nlegislation is passed through the co-decision process, in which the Commission
\ndrafts a proposal, then both Parliament and Council discuss, amend and vote on
\nthe proposal through the processes of two readings. The end of the procedures, both Council and Parliament must reach an
\nagreement on the final proposal, which then come law on publication in the EU\u2019s
\n\u2018Official Journal<\/a>[3]<\/a>\u2018 <\/p>\n
\ndirectly elected European Parliament and must approve EU legislation together
\nwith the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries).<\/p>\n
\nparties such as non-governmental organizations, local authorities and civil
\nsociety. Experts give guidance on technical issues. In this way, the Commission
\nguarantees that legislative proposals correspond to the needs of the citizens. [4]<\/a><\/p>\nImpact of Parliamentary Sovereignty <\/h2>\n
\nlegislative competence (ability or suitability) of parliament is unlimited
\n(absolute). Theoretically only parliament can make or unmake any law[6]<\/a>;
\nNo one can question the act of parliament and the current parliament is free to
\noverrule any previous parliament act. But in practice parliament does not
\nassume unlimited authority, the legislative must be recognized by international
\nlaw to be within its competence.[7]<\/a><\/p>\nImpact of Judicial Review <\/h2>\n
\ncorporate that performs is duties and exercises its powers for the public
\nbenefit, as opposed to private gain for example: the local authorities, commissioners…)
\nand the courts supervises to make sure that they are in accordance with the
\ndoctrine of ultra vires. <\/p>\n
\nMinister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374 HL also known as the GCHQ, where the
\nadministrative decision of banning trade union was questioned before the Court
\nand the administrative body had to explain their rational behind the decision.
\nThe traditional grounds to use judicial review are: illegality, irrationality
\nand procedural impropriety.[9]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\nauthorities that are incompatible with the European convention on human rights
\nfor example: R (on the application of CG) v The Commissioner of the Police of
\nthe Metropolis 2011 UKSC 21, 1 WLR 1230[10]<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nof Golder v United Kingdom (1975) 1 EHRR 524 the Strasbourg court decided that
\nthe right to an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of
\none’s civil rights did not mean only that if you could get yourself before a
\ncourt, it had to be independent and impartial. It meant that if you claimed on
\narguable grounds to have a civil right, you had a right to have that question
\ndetermined by a court. A right to the independence and impartiality of the
\njudicial branch of government would not be worth much if the executive branch
\ncould stop you from getting to the court in the first place. The executive
\nwould in effect be deciding the case against you. That would contravene the
\nrule of law and the principle of the separation of powers.\u201d <\/p>\n
\nBadenoch QC<\/a> of 1COR appeared for the
\nsuccessful Appellant)<\/p>\n
\nrelationship\u201d. Montgomery was
\nnot only one of the seminal cases in the law of clinical negligence in thirty
\nyears, it also recognized the importance of patient autonomy and the \u201cstimulus of human rights\u201d in
\ninforming what a doctor must tell his or her patient about the risks inherent
\nin a procedure.<\/p>\n
\nof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Janah<\/p>\n
\nImmunity Act 1978 s.4(2)(b) and s.16(1)(a) was incompatible with ECHR art.6. The
\nrespondents were Moroccan nationals who had been employed as domestic workers
\nby the Sudanese and Libyan embassies in London. Both had been recruited
\noverseas and only one had acquired permanent resident status in the UK. Both
\nwere dismissed from their employment and brought claims in the employment
\ntribunal. Some of their claims were based on UK law, some on EU law. In each
\ncase, the employment tribunal dismissed all the claims on the basis that they were
\nbarred by s.4(2)(b) and s.16(1)(a) of the Act. The EAT upheld the dismissal of
\nthe domestic law claims but allowed the EU law claims to proceed. The Court of
\nAppeal affirmed the EAT’s judgment, disapplying s.4(2)(b) and s.16(1)(a) so far
\nas they applied to the EU law claims and declaring them to be incompatible with
\nthe right to access a court guaranteed by ECHR art.6.<\/p>\n
\nopposition of the human rights (like right to a fair trial) and the EU law, and
\nsome they were incompatible with the EU\/UK law. And this assignment is about
\nthese keywords.<\/p>\nConclusion <\/h2>\n
\nhaving the EU law to follow as a good example, and my justification is that UK should
\nnot stop following the rules imposed by EU because they have 28 countries and
\nexpertise to help them to do fair laws, to all citizens. Having a good
\nrelationship with the other countries because they need each other for the
\ntrade (importing and exporting); the economy; to politics. And to have all the
\npower (sovereignty power to the Westminster of UK) in just one parliament they
\nwill do want they want, and the EU law exist to not having unfairness and
\nunlawfulness in the life we live in.<\/p>\nBibliography<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\npg 441-552<\/p>\n
\nof Public Law, University of Glasgow, \u00ab https:\/\/publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm201011\/cmselect\/cmeuleg\/633ii\/633we02.htm\u00bb<\/a> <\/p>\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35630757\u00bb<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/europa.eu\/european-union\/index_en\u00bb accessed 25\/10\/2017<\/p>\n
\nrule of law<\/p>\n
\npg 553-609<\/p>\n
\nSecretary of State for Transport Ex p. Factortame Ltd (No.2), westlaw. \u00ab https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?docguid=I694671A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&context=87&crumb-action=append\u00bb<\/a>\n<\/p>\n