Paper 3; EU Law; European Sources of Law
Key Cases Notes
R V Secretary of State for Transport ex European law undermined the sovereignty of parliament in some areas of law. When the UK
parte Factortame (1990) – In a case was still part of the EU, it was possible for unelected officials in Europe to make laws which
concerning a dispute over EU law, a were binding in the UK without any discussion in the British Parliament. Some EU law took
national court must set aside any precedence over national law.
domestic law which prevents it from
granting an interim remedy Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights
Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 UK judges must base their decisions on the presumption that UK law must be compatible with
human rights legislation. In the event that a piece of domestic legislation disagrees with
Jones V University of Warwick (2003) – C existing human rights protection, then it is the incompatible Act that must be amended. This
couldn’t rely upon Article 8 directly applies even though the UK has left the EU.
because D’s insurers were not a public
body. However for the courts (a public Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998
body) to ignore the manor of which the
This came into force in October 2000 and incorporated the main provision of the European
videos were obtained would go against
Convention of Human Rights into UK law. Section 2 provides that all of our domestic courts or
C’s Article 8 right, unless the evidence was
tribunals must take into account any judgement of the ECHR in determining a human rights
necessary to achieve justice, which it was
issue before them. The Act only applies to human rights abuses by the state or public bodies
R V Mental Health Review Tribunal ex and not abuses by private bodies or one private individual against another.
parte (2001) – The burden of proof was
Section 3 of the Act provides that domestic courts must, so far as is possible, interpret Acts of
on him when proving his recovery and this
Parliament to be compatible with the ECHR. As regards the impact of the Act upon
was incompatible with Article 5 (Right to
parliamentary sovereignty, section 4 provides that a court may declare that certain laws are
liberty), a declaration and remedial order
incompatible with a convention right. If the High Court (or above) is satisfied that a provision
was made
is incompatible with a convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility. The
effect of this is that a Minister may make a remedial order under section 10 to amend the
legislation to bring it into line with the convention right.
Key Terms and Definitions
Key Cases Notes
R V Secretary of State for Transport ex European law undermined the sovereignty of parliament in some areas of law. When the UK
parte Factortame (1990) – In a case was still part of the EU, it was possible for unelected officials in Europe to make laws which
concerning a dispute over EU law, a were binding in the UK without any discussion in the British Parliament. Some EU law took
national court must set aside any precedence over national law.
domestic law which prevents it from
granting an interim remedy Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights
Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 UK judges must base their decisions on the presumption that UK law must be compatible with
human rights legislation. In the event that a piece of domestic legislation disagrees with
Jones V University of Warwick (2003) – C existing human rights protection, then it is the incompatible Act that must be amended. This
couldn’t rely upon Article 8 directly applies even though the UK has left the EU.
because D’s insurers were not a public
body. However for the courts (a public Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998
body) to ignore the manor of which the
This came into force in October 2000 and incorporated the main provision of the European
videos were obtained would go against
Convention of Human Rights into UK law. Section 2 provides that all of our domestic courts or
C’s Article 8 right, unless the evidence was
tribunals must take into account any judgement of the ECHR in determining a human rights
necessary to achieve justice, which it was
issue before them. The Act only applies to human rights abuses by the state or public bodies
R V Mental Health Review Tribunal ex and not abuses by private bodies or one private individual against another.
parte (2001) – The burden of proof was
Section 3 of the Act provides that domestic courts must, so far as is possible, interpret Acts of
on him when proving his recovery and this
Parliament to be compatible with the ECHR. As regards the impact of the Act upon
was incompatible with Article 5 (Right to
parliamentary sovereignty, section 4 provides that a court may declare that certain laws are
liberty), a declaration and remedial order
incompatible with a convention right. If the High Court (or above) is satisfied that a provision
was made
is incompatible with a convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility. The
effect of this is that a Minister may make a remedial order under section 10 to amend the
legislation to bring it into line with the convention right.
Key Terms and Definitions
