Search

The article focuses on the changes in Great Britain Human Rights Act (HRA) and the protection of fundamental rights under the common law. It mentions that decision of Great Britain Supreme Court in the case (Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the breach of principles of equality or proportionality. It also mentions that freedom from degrading and inhuman treatment and cruel and unusual punishment.

The article discusses the boundaries of proportionality review and the decision of a person with a disability to end his/her life, focusing on the decision of the British Supreme Court in R(Nicklinson and others) v Ministry of Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions. Topics include the prosecutorial guidance, the position of the Supreme Court on assisted suicide, and how the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether it should defer to the British Parliament on assisted suicide.

The article discusses the application of proportionality as a standard of review in public health cases, focusing on the threat to the traditional principles of proportionality and the European Union (EU) policy presented by Sinclair Collis and decisions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). It argues that the CJEU should not purport to apply proportionality principles if Sinclair Collis had correctly identify a trend in EU cases of proportionality review while paying lip service.

The article discusses the standards of review in planning cases of judicial review in Great Britain that provides illustration in how proportionality analysis is inapposite for decisions. The issue arose following the court rejection for judicial review of a screening direction regarding a proposed housing development in Suffolk, England in 2013. The decision of the Court of Appeal follows the environmental impact assessment that was likely to have significant effects on the environment.

The article discusses the principle of minimal interference as compared to rationality in the proportionality of Great Britain's Human Rights Act (HRA). It notes the discretionary balances of the principle between the public interest and private right and the constitutional balance between judicial power and the power of elected government as well as legislative power. It mentions the institutional competence and democratic legitimacy as the factors that may increase the weight of public view.

The article focuses on the increase trend wherein English courts use European Union (EU) Law. It states that cases brought up by English Courts that use EU law produces recurrent themes which include the purposive interpretation of powers of secondary legislation, tensions between EU and domestic administrative law, and disputes on proportionality and regulatory review. It says that litigation that uses EU law is cause by lack of or exhausted domestic legal redress, it offers much advantageous legal approach, and produced aggregate value.

The article offers information on the text given by barrister at Brick Court Chambers Richard Gordon, on two dogmas of proportionality, at the joint ALBA-BEG summer conference, held in Athens, Greece, on May 29-30, 2011. It mentions that two related dogmas or underlying assumptions seem to attach to the modern doctrine of human rights proportionality. It informs that dogmas are assertions to be questioned. Gordon examines whether proportionality have a clear analytic structure. He concludes that proportionality is the intensity of review rather than any intrinsically different formal structure.

The article discusses the connection between proportionality and traditional judicial review standards in the context of domestic law of Great Britain's Human Rights Act 1998 citing two Supreme Court decisions, Manchester City Council v. Pinnock and London Borough of Hounslow v. Powell, Leeds City Council v. Hall, Birmingham City Council v. Frisby. The Court upheld the rights to claim for possession regardless of the fact that the public authority has an unqualified right to claim as part of domestic law. Proportionality adds to conventional judicial review where there was no relevant issue and was proportionate to grant the claim for possession.

The article discusses the issue on immigration in Great Britain related to the article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning a person's right of privacy and family life, and for home and correspondence. It highlights the approach for article 8 in domestic law of the House of Lords, the assessment of proportionality in deportation, requiring an applicant to leave the country and make an application for entry. It also discussed the effects of deportation on other family members.

The article discusses the Article 11 in the Human Rights Act 1998 which provides freedom among practitioners to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. It states that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) codified the provisions of the article stating that exercise of the interest protection rights of practitioners shall not be placed with restrictions. It notes that freedom of peaceful assembly is one of the foundations of the democratic society. It also mentions that few arguments were raised under the provisions of the domestic case law such as the right to protest. Moreover, it concludes that proportionality and the settings in the jurisprudence must not be forgotten by those who plan to raise arguments of Article 11.

The article offers information on the text given by Right Honourable Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, a Lord Justice of Appeal on proportionality test, at the joint ALBA-BEG summer conference, held in Athens, Greece, on May 29-30, 2011. It mentions that proportionality test, as applied by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights. It reveals that legislative objective must be sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right. It informs that the test is designed to meet the legislative objective that must be rationally connected to the objective.