Read the book: «Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum», page 20
Bibliographie
| Trevor Robert Seaward Allan, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law, 2003 |
| Mads Andenas, English Public Law and the Common Law of Europe, 1998 |
| Gordon Anthony, United Kingdom Public Law and European Law: The Dynamics of Legal Integration, 2002 |
| Paul Beaumont, Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law, 2002 |
| Patrick Birkinshaw, European Public Law, 2003 |
| Anthony Bradley/Keith Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 132003 |
| Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases, and Materials, 32003 |
| Albert Venn Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, 101960 |
| David Dyzenhaus, The Unity of Public Law, 2004 |
| David Feldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, 22002 |
| Helen Fenwick, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 32002 |
| Stephen George, An Awkward Partner, Britain in the European Community, 31998 |
| Sean Greenwood, Britain and European Integration since the Second World War, 1996 |
| Murray Hunt, Using Human Rights Law in English Courts, 1997 |
| Jeffrey Jowell/Dawn Oliver (Hg.), The Changing Constitution, 2004 |
| Jeffrey Jowell/Jonathan Cooper, Delivering Rights: How the Human Rights Act Is Working, 2003 |
| Frederic William Maitland, The Constitutional History of England: A Course of Lectures, 1926 |
| Basil Markesinis, The British Contribution to the Europe of the Twenty-first Century, 2002 |
| Danny Nicol, EC Membership and the Judicialisation of British Politics, 2002 |
| Dawn Oliver, Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom, 2003 |
| Jürgen Schwarze, The Birth of a European Constitutional Order, 2000 |
| Robert Stevens, The English Judges: Their Role in the Changing Constitution, 2002 |
| Colin Turpin, British Government and Constitution, 52002 |
| Ian Ward, The English Constitution: Myths and Realities, 2004 |
Anmerkungen
[1]
John Wiedhofft Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History, 1955.
[2]
David Dyzenhaus, The Unity of Public Law, 2004, S. 1ff.
[3]
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in four books, 151809, Introduction, Abschnitt 2: „Of the nature of laws in general / and his description of the law of nature, the law of nations and municipal law“.
[4]
Siehe etwa Paul Craig/Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law. Text, Cases, and Materials, 32003, S. 302: „Consequently, in order to be enforceable and to bind at the domestic level, such [international] treaties must be domestically incorporated by an Act of Parliament.“
[5]
Ursprünglich: European Assembly Elections Act 1978 Abschnitt 6.
[6]
BVerfGE 89, 155.
[7]
R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty Intervening) [1998] 4 All ER 897.
[8]
R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] 1 All ER 457.
[9]
R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97.
[10]
European Roma Rights Centre v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55.
[11]
Cm 5934 (2003) und Cm 6309 (2004).
[12]
Die zweite Lesung der EU Bill, die noch kein Gesetz ist, wurde im Juni 2005 verschoben. Siehe http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050606/debtext/50606-05.htm (27.4.2006).
[13]
Lord Goldsmith, The Charter of Rights – a Brake not an Accelerator, EHRLR 2004, S. 473, 475.
[14]
Lord Goldsmith (Fn. 13), S. 473, 475.
[15]
Danny Nicol, EC Membership and the Judicialisation of British Politics, 2002, S. 116.
[16]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame (No. 2) [1991] 1 All ER 70 (HL).
[17]
Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council [2002] 4 All ER 156.
[18]
Patrick Birkinshaw, European Public Law, 2003, S. 172–174.
[19]
Gordon Anthony, UK Public Law and European Law, 2002, S. 78.
[20]
Stanley Alexander de Smith, The Constitution and the Common Market: A Tentative Appraisal, Modern Law Review 1971, S. 21.
[21]
Macarthys Ltd v. Smith [1979] 3 All ER 325.
[22]
[2002] 1 CMLR 50, 101.
[23]
Sean Greenwood, Britain and European Integration since the Second World War, 1996, S. 5.
[24]
Stephen George, An Awkward Partner. Britain in the European Community, 1990, S. 21.
[25]
George (Fn. 24), S. 15.
[26]
George (Fn. 24), S. 28.
[27]
George (Fn. 24), S. 34.
[28]
Zitiert bei Elisabeth Barker, The Common Market, 1976, S. 76–77, sowie bei George (Fn. 24), S. 34.
[29]
George (Fn. 24), S. 40.
[30]
George (Fn. 24), S. 1.
[31]
Ian Ward, The English Constitution: Myths and Realities, 2004, S. 135.
[32]
Anthony Bradley, in: Jowell/Oliver (Hg.), The Changing Constitution, 2004, S. 29.
[33]
Macarthys v. Smith [1979] 3 All ER 325, 329.
[34]
Richard Rawling, Legal Politics: the United Kingdom and Ratification of the Treaty on European Union. Part I, Public Law 1994, S. 254, 278.
[35]
Genau genommen gibt es englisches, walisisches, schottisches und nordirisches Recht. Einige Gesetze finden im gesamten Vereinigten Königreich Anwendung.
[36]
Murray Hunt, Using Human Rights Law in English Courts, 1997, S. 56–58.
[37]
Birkinshaw (Fn. 18), S. 184.
[38]
Vaughne Miller, The Extension of Qualified Majority Voting from the Treaty of Rome to the European Constitution, House of Commons Library Research Paper 05/54 vom 7.7.2004, S. 8.
[39]
White Paper: „A Constitutional Treaty for the EU: the British approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 2003“, Cm 5937, September 2003, S. 66.
[40]
Siehe Fn. 31.
[41]
[1979] 3 All ER 325. Dazu Trevor Robert Seaward Allan, Parliamentary Sovereignty: Lord Denning’s Dexterous Revolution, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 3 (1983), S. 22.
[42]
[1983] 2 AC 751.
[43]
[1983] 2 AC 751, 771.
[44]
EuGH, Rs. 14/83, Slg. 1984, S. 1891 – von Colson/Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.
[45]
[1988] AC 618.
[46]
[1988] AC 618, 638–41.
[47]
[1996] 2 CMLR 990.
[48]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No. 2) [1991] 1 All ER 70.
[49]
[1989] 2 All ER 692 (HL).
[50]
Die Rechtslage hat sich seither geändert, siehe M v. Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377.
[51]
EuGH, Rs. C-213/89, Slg. 1990, I-2433 – The Queen/Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame.
[52]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No. 2) [1991] 1 All ER 70.
[53]
EuGH, Rs. C-221/89, Slg. 1991, I-3905 – The Queen/Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame.
[54]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No. 5) [1999] 4 All ER 906 (HL).
[55]
William Wade, What has happened to the Sovereignty of Parliament?, Law Quarterly Review 107 (1991), S. 107; ders., Sovereignty – Revolution or Evolution?, Law Quarterly Review 112 (1996), S. 568; Carol Harlow, in: Kilpatrick/Novits/Skidmore (Hg.), The Future of Remedies in Europe, 2000, S. 82; Paul Craig, Parliamentary Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament After Factortame, Yearbook of European Law 11 (1991), S. 221; Trevor Robert Seaward Allan, Parliamentary Sovereignty: Law, Politics and Revolution, Law Quarterly Review 113 (1997), S. 443.
[56]
[1994] 1 All ER 910.
[57]
Siehe Fn. 55.
[58]
Paul Craig, in: Jowell/Oliver (Fn. 32), S. 102.
[59]
Zusätzlich zu den in diesem Teil des European Communities Act 1972 genannten Gesetzen ist jedes bereits wirksame oder zukünftige Gesetz im Einklange mit den diesem Abschnitt vorhergehenden Vorschriften auszulegen.
[60]
Craig (Fn. 58), S. 104. Für die nicht erfassten Fälle wäre dieser Ansicht nach die Konsequenz, dass das Gesetz nicht interpretiert werden kann und weiterhin anzuwenden ist, siehe etwa den Fall Duke v. GEC Reliance [1988] AC 618.
[61]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 107–108.
[62]
R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 5) [1999] 3 WLR 1062 (HL); dazu Adam Cygan, Defining a sufficiently serious breach of Community law: the House of Lords casts its net into the waters, European Law Review 25 (2000), S. 452; Merris Amos, Eurotorts and Unicorns: Damages for breach of Community Law in the United Kingdom, in: Fairgrieve/Andenas/Bell (Hg.), Tort Liability of Public Authorities in Comparative Perspective, 2002, S. 109.
[63]
Abs. 1078.
[64]
HC Debates, Bd. 372, Sp. 399 (19.7.2001).
[65]
EuGH, Rs. C-46/93, Slg. 1996, I-1029 – Brasserie du Pêcheur/Bundesrepublik Deutschland und The Queen/Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others.
[66]
Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England (No. 3) [1996] 3 All ER 558; R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Gallagher [1996] 2 CMLR 951; Boyd Line Management Services Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Astonquest Ltd, Court of Appeal, 21.12.1999; R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Lay and Gage [1998] Crown Office Digest 387.
[67]
Siehe z.B. Bourgoin SA v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716; X v. Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633; Stovin v. Wise [1996] 3 All ER 801 (HL).
[68]
Mark Hoskins, in: Beatson/Tridimas (Hg.), New Directions in European Public Law, 1998, S. 91.
[69]
[2004] 3 CMLR 31, Abs. 50.
[70]
Paul Craig, in: Andenas (Hg.), English Public Law and the Common Law of Europe, 1998, Kapitel 8; siehe auch Lord Woolf, in: R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1998] 3 CMLR 192, Abs. 38.
[71]
[2002] 1 CMLR 50, 101.
[72]
BVerfGE 89, 155.
[73]
Es ist rechtmäßig, Waren im alten Pfund-Gewicht anzubieten, sie müssen jedoch in metrischen Maßen verkauft werden.
[74]
R (Jackson) v. Att. Gen. [2005] EWCA Civ.
[75]
[2005] UKHL 56.
[76]
Abs. 60.
[77]
Abs. 62.
[78]
Siehe oben im Text bei Fn. 4.
[79]
Abs. 69.
[80]
Abs. 69.
[81]
Abs. 70.
[82]
[2005] EWCA Civ 126.
[83]
[2005] UKHL 56, Abs. 31.
[84]
[2005] UKHL 56, Abs. 41.
[85]
[2005] UKHL 56, Abs. 102.
[86]
Sir Leslie Scarman, English Law: the New Dimension, 1974, S. 15.
[87]
Per Lord Justice Diplock, in: Salomon v. Commissioners of Custom and Excise [1967] 2 QB 116.
[88]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill/Lydia Clapinska, Human Rights and the British Constitution, in: Jowell/Oliver (Fn. 32), S. 70 m.w.N.
[89]
Helen Fenwick, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 2002, S. 114.
[90]
[1990] 1 AC 109.
[91]
Colin Turpin, British Government and Constitution, 2002, S. 165.
[92]
Sir Edward Gardner QC, HC Debates, Bd. 109, Sp. 1224 (6.2.1987) sowie z.B. Lord Goff, in: Att. Gen. v. Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1988] 3 All ER 545.
[93]
[1995] 4 All ER 400, 422 h-j.
[94]
Anthony Lester, Fundamental Rights: The United Kingdom Isolated?, Public Law 1984, S. 46.
[95]
Lester (Fn. 94), S. 49; Geoffrey Marston, The United Kingdom’s part in the preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1993, S. 796.
[96]
Marston (Fn. 95), S. 808.
[97]
Marston (Fn. 95), S. 810.
[98]
Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill Cm. 3782 (HMSO, 1997).
[99]
Siehe www.dca.gov.uk (28.3.2006).
[100]
Diese Abteilung kann einem Justizministerium gleichgesetzt werden.
[101]
Equality Bill which establishes a Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).
[102]
Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Northern Shell plc v. Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992.
[103]
Wadham/Mountfield/Edmundson (Hg.), Blackstone’s Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998, 2003, S. 98 m.w.N.
[104]
EuGH, Verb. Rs. C-6 und 9/90, Slg. 1991, I-5357 – Francovich und Bonifaci/Italien; Verb. Rs. C-46 und 48/93, Slg. 1996, I-1029 – Brasserie du Pêcheur und R/Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame; auch veröffentlicht in [1996] QB 404.
[105]
Richard Clayton, Damage Limitation: The Courts and the Human Rights Act Damages, Public Law 2005, S. 429, 430.
[106]
Law Commission, Report No. 266, Damages under the Human Rights Act, Cm 4853 (2000).
[107]
[2003] EWCA Civ 1406; [2004] QB 1124.
[108]
Diese waren nicht unumstritten, siehe z.B. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14.
[109]
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Greenfield [2005] UKHL 14, Abs. 2.6.
[110]
Richard Clayton, Damage Limitation: The Courts and the Human Rights Act Damages, Public Law 2005, S. 429, 435.
[111]
Wadham/Mountfield/Edmundson (Fn. 103), S. 102.
[112]
[2004] UKHL 30, Abs. 49–50. Siehe auch www.humanrights.gov.uk/decihm.htm (28.3.2005).
[113]
[2001] UKHL 23.
[114]
[2003] UKHL 40.
[115]
[2001] EWCA Civ 415.
[116]
[2002] 3 WLR 344.
[117]
A (FC) and Others (FC) v. Secretary of State [2004] UKHL 56, Belmarsh-Entscheidung.
[118]
Abschnitt 23 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
[119]
Abs. 42.
[120]
Deirdre M. Dwyer, Rights Brought Home, Law Quarterly Review 121 (2005), S. 359.
[121]
The Independent, Editorial, 12.8.2005.
[122]
The Times, Editorial, 12.8.2005.
[123]
Gareth Crossman, Reconciling freedom with security, New Law Journal, 5.8.2005, S. 1193.
[124]
Pressekonferenz des Prime Minister, 5.8.2005.
[125]
A. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Modern Law Review 2005, S. 654.
[126]
HC vol. 372, col. 925 (15.10.2001).
[127]
Stephen Tierney, Determining the State of Exception: What Role for Parliament and the Courts?, Modern Law Review 2005, S. 668, 671f.
[128]
Siehe z.B. R v. A (No. 2) [2001] UKHL 25.
[129]
White Paper „Rights Brought Home: the Human Rights Bill“, Cm 3782 (1997), Abs. 2.13.
[130]
Abschnitt 4 (6) (b) Human Rights Act 1998.
[131]
Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill, Oktober 1997, Cm 3782, Kapitel 2.4.
[132]
Siehe z.B. Lord Bingham, A New Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. The Constitution Unit Spring lecture 2002, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/90.pdf (28.4.2006); A Department for Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper, Constitutional Reform: a new way of Appointing Judges CP 10/03, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom (CP 11/03), 14.7.2003.
[133]
Siehe www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/reform/pubs.htm (28.3.2006).
[134]
New QC scheme to put customer first, 26.5.2004, http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp (26.4.2006).
[135]
Teil 2 des Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
[136]
Robert Stevens, Reform in haste and repent at leisure, Legal Studies 24 (2004), S. 30 m.w.N.
[137]
Brenda Hale, A Supreme court for the United Kingdom?, Legal Studies 24 (2004), Ausgaben 1 und 2, Constitutional Innovations: the Creation of a Supreme Court for the UK; Domestic, Comparative and International Reflections. A Special Issue, S. 36.
[138]
Lord Woolf, The Rule of Law and a Change in the Constitution. Squire Centenary Lecture. Cambridge University. 3.3.2004, S. 8, www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/lcj030304.htm (28.3.2006).
[139]
Lord Woolf (Fn. 138), S. 2, 9, 11.
[140]
Vgl. Lord Woolf, Lionel Cohen Lecture, Jerusalem 2.12.2003, http://www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/speeches/lcj021203.htm (26.4.2006).
[141]
8 BHRC 56, The Times, 22.2.2000.
[142]
2000 Justiciary Cases (in: Session Cases) 208.
[143]
Diana Woodhouse, The Constitutional and Political Implications of a UK Supreme Court, Legal Studies 24 (2004), Ausgaben 1 und 2, Constitutional Innovations: the Creation of a Supreme Court for the UK; Domestic, Comparative and International Reflections. A Special Issue, S. 134; Andrew Le Sueur/Richard Cornes, The Future of the United Kingdom’s Highest Courts, 2001, S. 126ff.; siehe auch Jutta Limbach, Concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution, Modern Law Review 2001, S. 1, mit Hinweisen auf das deutsche Bundestagswahlsystem; Anthony King, Does the United Kingdom still have a constitution?, 2001, S. 70; Craig (Fn. 58), S. 102, benutzt den Begriff der „Kompetenz-Kompetenz“.
[144]
Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, CP 11/03, Juli 2003, Abs. 20.
[145]
Robert Stevens, The English Judges. Their Role in the Changing Constitution, 2002, S. 10.
[146]
Cm 3782 (1997).
[147]
Abschnitt 2.12.
[148]
White Paper, Abschnitt 1.14.
[149]
Martina Künnecke, The impact of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Z v. UK on the development of the liability of public bodies in the UK, European Public Law 8 (2002), S. 25, 28, 31.
[150]
[2001] 2 AC 550.
[151]
EGMR, Nr. 23452/94, Urteil vom 28.10.1998, Rep. 1998-VIII; auch veröffentlicht in [1999] 1 FLR 193.
[152]
EGMR, Nr. 29392/95, Urteil vom 10.5.2001, Rep. 2001-V; auch veröffentlicht in [2001] 2 FLR 612.
[153]
[2001] 2 FLR 612, Abschnitt 100.
[154]
Lord Irvine of Lairg, The impact of the Human Rights Act: Parliament, the Courts and the Executive, Public Law 2003, S. 308, 317.
[155]
Diane Pretty v. United Kingdom [2002] 35 EHRR 1.
[156]
R (Alconbury Development Ltd and Others) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] 2 WLR 1389.
[157]
Lord Irvine of Lairg (Fn. 154), S. 317.
[158]
Ebd.
[159]
[2004] UKHL 39, Abs. 27.
[160]
[2004] UKHL 26, Abs. 20.
[161]
[2004] UKHL 39, Abs. 27.
[162]
[2001] 2 WLR 1389, Abs. 129.
[163]
Keith David Ewing, The Futility of the Human Rights Act, Public Law 2004, S. 829, 840.
[164]
Anthony Lester, The Human Rights Act 1998 – Five years on, EHRLR 2004, S. 258, 265.
[165]
Die europäische Konvention für Menschenrechte ist ebenfalls in das irische Recht inkorporiert worden. Die irische Reaktion hierauf war jedoch nicht so positiv wie die im Vereinigten Königreich, da die irische Verfassung bereits Menschenrechte schützt. John Maurice Kelly, The Irish Constitution, 2003, S. 155.
[166]
Birkinshaw (Fn. 18), S. 614.
[167]
Diesen Begriff verwendet Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems are not Converging, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1996, S. 52, 60.
[168]
Mark Elliott, United Kingdom: Parliamentary Sovereignty under pressure, Int’l J. Const. Law 2 (2004), S. 545, 546.
[169]
BVerfGE 89, 155.
[170]
[1994] 1 CMLR 57.
[171]
Lord Hope of Craighead, Human Rights – Where are we now?, EHRLR 2000, S. 439.
[172]
Basil Markesinis, The study and use of foreign law, Law Quarterly Review 109 (1993), S. 622, 624.
[173]
White Paper on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Cm 6309, September 2004.
[174]
Ebd.
[175]
Josephine Shaw, Europe’s Constitutional Future, Public Law 2005, S. 132, 142.
