Tagged: Judicial review
In January 2010 in Case C-456/08 the European Court of Justice found that Order 84A of the Rules of the Superior Courts was not in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665. The Commission had taken proceedings against Ireland over a failure by the National Roads Authority and the terms of Order 84A of the RSC. Ireland lost on both points. The ECJ condemned Order 84A on the grounds it; “..gives rise to uncertainty as to which decision must be […]
Of course, Article 28 (3) is out of date; no State actor in international affairs follows the convention and legal obligation to “declare” war – they just wage it. Nevertheless, as a purely internal Irish affair, to take a hands-off approach to Executive action on such a question, where the Executive can seek the assent of the Dail, but does not, is not in the national interest.
It will not apply to debates on the legitimacy of tight time limits on applications for Judicial Review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, because there are no such debates.
Our Financial Regulator is confident, and has asserted so in public, that he is not at fault in failing to properly regulate the Irish Banks in circumstances where they ultimately needed rescuing by the taxpayers. For his pains he has been told by (some) elected representatives he ought to resign. In fact, it is difficult to criticise him. That is not to say he is not open to criticism, just that it is difficult to do so, as was seen […]
Ryanair is not popular. For this writer, itâs enough to remember traveling to Venice and being dropped in Treviso. It was the âarrangementâ? for the return flight that left everything to be desired.
The Supreme Court held that this could only be read prospectively (into the future) and did not avail the State in its arguments. (The Supreme Court also found that the Act, as so read, was constitutional. It also found that the offence “assault occasioning actual bodily harm” was a common law offence.)
Consequently, as subordinate legislation, and in the light of Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland, Order 84 cannot be the source of a new exclusive procedure limiting the right to challenge administrative acts by plenary proceedings [such as under S. 155 of the Chancery (Ireland) Act 1867].
In typical form SCALIA J dissented. In his view, regardless of the importance of the issue, the Court should not attempt to second guess the view of the executive agency (EPA) in light of its experience and judgment.
That Teacake is a dagger in the heart of Judicial Review.
The constitutionality of Order 84 has been questioned in academic writing for the reason, that is, that the civil, property and constitutional rights of citizens cannot be lawfully adjudicated on within the narrow parameters and inadequate legal basis of Order 84 and that, at the very least, primary legislation is required to underpin the legality of Irish Judicial Review.