1827:
invasion by a
Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based on a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. ... Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply ...
673:), which established the principle that "a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law". The Factortame case provided the court for an opportunity to elaborate on the principles underlying the liability of member states. It was a case in which almost all member states intervened to deny, whether wholly or substantially, the right to claim damages; the UK accepted that there was, in principle, such a right. The EC Treaty does not deal expressly with the consequences of a breach of Community law by a member state, and so it was for the court to rule on the question having regard to "the fundamental principles of the Community legal system and, where necessary, general principles common to the legal systems of the Member States".
515:). National courts must, in that respect, apply EC law through available national procedures or, failing that, of their own motion. Focusing on the House of Lords' argument that it could not temporarily suspend the application of a national law, the Advocate-General emphasised the importance of interim relief in every legal system, remarking that its purpose was to ensure that the time needed to establish a right would not deprive that right of any substance. Furthermore, he did not believe that national courts were entitled to give priority to national legislation merely because it had not yet been shown to be incompatible with Community law; if that were the case, rights conferred by national law would have greater protection than that offered to Community law rights.
523:
opinion, the ECJ held that a national court, in fact, has a duty to grant interim relief to safeguard alleged
Community rights of individuals until the decision of the ECJ on the interpretation of Community law is available, and where a rule of national law would deny such relief, to set aside that rule. The basis of such a duty lies in the nature and object of directly effective Community law rights which are intended to be fully effective throughout the EU, and where it is necessary to grant interim measures in order to safeguard such a right, a national court must do so. This is especially true where a national court is awaiting a clarification or interpretation of the right claimed by the ECJ.
445:) reversed the divisional court's decision on 22 March 1989 on the basis that, although a national court was obliged to give effect to Community law, it was not obliged "to override national law in favour of what is no more than an alleged or putative Community right". Furthermore, it did not believe that the divisional court had "acknowledged the constitutional enormity, as the law stands, of requiring a Secretary of State to act contrary to the clearly expressed will of Parliament when the unlawfulness of that expression has yet to be established". The divisional court would not, according to the court, have jurisdiction to grant an injunction until Factortame had succeeded before the ECJ.
485:
a national court, faced with a seriously arguable claim to rights having direct effect under
Community law, to grant interim relief. Lord Bridge concluded that as there was no clear authority on this question, a decision from the ECJ was necessary to enable the House of Lords to give judgment. The House was, in any event, obliged to request a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC (now Article 267 TFEU post-Lisbon Treaty) which obliges courts "against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law" to make a reference. This request for a preliminary ruling was in addition to that already made by the divisional court on the compatibility of the 1988 Act with Community law.
786:, Factortame's claims against the UK government were "actions founded on tort", and that consequently a six-year limitation period applied. This meant that other claims against the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 would only be admissible if they had been lodged by 10 July 1996 (i.e. six years from the House of Lords' decision of 9 July 1990 granting Factortame interim relief), otherwise such claims were statute-barred. The judge therefore rejected claims by Factortame in respect of other fishing vessels which had been refused registration under the 1988 Act, but which had not formed part of the original claim lodged in 1988, nor had been claimed before July 1996.
624:
by introducing a requirement based on an individual's residence and domicile, the Act operated an unfair distinction between UK nationals and those from other Member States as "the great majority of nationals of the are resident and domiciled in that State and therefore meet that requirement automatically, whereas nationals of other Member States would, in most cases, have to move their residence and domicile to in order to comply with the requirements of ". In respect of the condition that the vessel should be managed and its operations directed from the UK, the ECJ found, however, that this requirement was compatible with
Community law.
620:'s opinion, the court (sitting as the full court of 11 justices) en banc held that "it is for the Member States to determine ... the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a vessel to be registered in their registers and granted the right to fly their flag, but, in exercising that power, the Member States must comply with the rules of Community law". In particular, the conditions for registration should not constitute obstacles for nationals of one Member State to establish themselves in business in the territory of another Member State (the freedom of establishment), nor should they discriminate on the basis of nationality.
2068:: "If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision of it or with the intention of acting inconsistently with it—it says so in express terms—I should have thought it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute in our Parliament." That much is clear. Other consequences would follow in those circumstances, which arise from our signature on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty, Article 27, which says that you have to respect the international obligations into which you have entered.
632:
introduce conditions ensuring that a "real economic link" existed between the ship and the State of registration, but such a link had to "concern only the relations between the vessel's operations and the population dependent on fisheries and related industries". In other words, it would have been possible for the UK government to prescribe conditions which protected UK fishing communities from the effects of the opening up of national fishing waters to other Member States, but it could not do that through the imposition of explicit nationality and residence conditions.
511:(case 106/77) that directly effective Community law provisions create legal rights which are enforceable by individuals from the date of their entry into force, regardless of any contrary national law. It also followed from the ECJ's case law that it was for the legal system of each Member State to designate the procedures intended to protect Community law rights, and that these procedures must not "be adapted so as it make it impossible in practice to exercise the rights which the national courts are required to protect" (case 61/79, Denkavit,
700:
question, taking into account the clarity and precision of the
Community rule infringed, whether the damage was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable, and whether a Community institution contributed towards the adoption or maintenance of contrary national measures or practices. These same conditions apply to state liability for damage caused by the decision of a judicial body adjudicating at last instance.
279:, which included the limit of their fishing zones, to a distance 200 nautical miles (370 km) from their coastlines. In 1980 the EU concluded a fisheries agreement with Spain, which did not become a member of the EU until 1985, which gave the latter (which had the largest fishing fleet in Europe) limited rights to fish in the waters of the member states. In 1983 concerns over the effect that equality of access might have on
44:
548:, the law regulating the UK's membership of the EU, it had "always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law". In the same way that Parliament had introduced legislation to remedy areas of UK law which did not meet the standards set by EU
540:
on the compatibility of the 1988 Act; in this regard, the House of Lords took into account indications from the ECJ's first ruling that
Factortame's arguments had "considerable force". Lord Goff did, however, emphasise that the courts would not, in other cases, readily or easily grant an injunction against the Crown which effectively prevents the Crown from applying national law.
477:. According to Lord Bridge, two obstacles stood in the way of the granting of the injunction. Firstly, the relief sought required the court to order positive action in the shape of the disapplication of the 1988 Act and the application of the 1894 Act; were Factortame not to succeed before the ECJ, the House of Lords would have "conferred upon them rights directly contrary to
507:). He first noted that the injunction sought by Factortame would in fact be available in all Member States except the UK and Denmark. He then proceeded to conclude that a national court must have the power to provisionally set aside a national law which conflicts with Community law, founding his argument on three bases. He recalled that it had been established in
340:, manager or operator had to be a qualified person or company. A "qualified person or company" was a person who was a British citizen resident and domiciled in the UK or a company which was incorporated in the UK and had its principal place of business there having at least 75% of its shares owned by, and at least 75% of its directors being, "qualified persons".
763:
acted in good faith in passing the Act. Nevertheless, the government had been aware of the risk it was running with such legislation and it had done everything possible to ensure that fishermen could not obtain interim relief against the Act's application. The case would now go back to a divisional court for the amount of damages to be determined.
1162:, Lord Denning MR said, "If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act—with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it—or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it—and says so in express terms—then ... it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament."
680:
reaffirmed the right of reparation, and stated that it existed irrespective of whether the provision of
Community law in question has direct effect. Furthermore, the principle applies to any case where a member state breaches Community law, irrespective of which organ of the state was responsible for
623:
In the event, the ECJ found the nationality requirements in the
Merchant Shipping Act 1988 discriminatory and contrary to Article 43 EC as a restriction on the freedom of establishment. It also violated articles 12 and 221 EC. The residence and domicile conditions also breached Article 43. In effect,
585:
Furthermore, the case does not, on a strict reading, constitute a breach of parliamentary sovereignty. The
Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was not a purposeful and direct conflict with EC law, but was instead an attempt to give effect to the fishing quotas required under EC law. Therefore, the courts were
1826:
Some public comments on the decision of the Court of
Justice, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts of member states to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous
723:) which ruled on 31 July 1997 that HMG had committed a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in passing the offending provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and that that breach gave rise to damage for which Factortame should be compensated. The court rejected a claim by Factortame for
484:
Nevertheless, Lord Bridge did accept that each of these obstacles was subject to any contrary Community law requirement. This required the House of Lords to determine whether, regardless of the position in national law, there existed an overriding principle of Community law imposing an obligation on
381:
HMG argued that the registration requirements were intended to ensure that fishing vessels flying the British flag had a genuine link with the UK. It maintained that international law entitled each State to determine the conditions under which a ship might fly its flag and that Community law had not
766:
In March 2000, Factortame and the other claimants (approximately 90 Anglo-Spanish fishing companies) accepted an offer of settlement from the Secretary of State. Under the terms of the settlement the claimants, who had originally claimed ÂŁ285 million, received ÂŁ55 million including interest of some
539:
In deciding to grant relief to Factortame, two factors influenced the House of Lords. Firstly, the likelihood that Factortame would suffer hardship and loss, were relief not to be allowed. Secondly, the prospects of Factortame succeeding in a full trial of the case once the ECJ had given its ruling
531:
On 11 October 1990 the House of Lords gave its judgment in the light of the ECJ's ruling and granted an injunction in favour of Factortame. Three principal issues emerged from their judgment, namely the availability of interim relief against the Crown, the basis on which such relief can be granted,
335:
and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations were introduced as a result, to replace the system of registration contained in the 1894 Act with a new system under which a vessel could only be registered if it had "a genuine and substantial connection" with the UK. For this
307:
in the United Kingdom. The company, together with 96 others whose directors and shareholders were mostly Spanish nationals, re-registered 53 vessels which had formerly flown the Spanish flag as British fishing vessels under the 1894 Act. They also acquired 42 existing British vessels with a view to
699:
In the case where a state had exercised broad discretion in passing legislation which breached Community law (as was the case in Factortame), for the breach to be "sufficiently serious" it must be "manifest" and "grave". National courts have jurisdiction to decide how to characterise the breach in
684:
The court proceeded to outline the conditions on which liability would be established. It underlined that such conditions could not, in the absence of a particular justification, differ from the conditions applicable to the liability of the Community in similar circumstances. Further, the right to
649:
Following the ECJ's second ruling, the case returned once more to the High Court which, on 18 November 1992, requested a third ruling from ECJ concerning the conditions under which a member state may incur liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to that
493:
The action was lodged at the ECJ on 10 July 1989 (as Case C-213/89) by the House of Lords with the request that it deal with the matter quickly, which it indeed did, giving the case priority over others. The whole matter had up until then proceeded with great speed, taking only six months from its
762:
The House of Lords unanimously ruled in favour of Factortame on 28 October 1999. It rejected the argument that HMG's reliance on legal advice at the time of passing the 1988 Act did not deprive the breach of its grave and manifest character. The court did accept, however, that the government had
559:
as "revolutionary", in that Lord Bridge suggests that Parliament has, in passing the European Communities Act 1972, managed to bind its successors from repealing the Act impliedly. It had previously been thought that no parliament could ever bind its successors in such a way. In a case where two
2029:
If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it—and says so in express terms—then ... it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our
631:
allowed for a system of national quotas and the 1988 Act ensured the effectiveness of that system. This was rejected by the ECJ which stated that fishing vessel registration criteria were permitted, but not where they violated Community law. It was, in that respect, open to the UK government to
522:
gave its ruling, rephrasing the question posed as "whether a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule". Following the Advocate-General's
302:
c. 60) Although the 1894 act prohibited ownership of vessels by non-UK nationals, UK-domiciled companies were allowed registration as the owners. Amongst the early beneficiaries of the 1894 act was Factortame Limited, a company whose directors were Joseph J L Couceiro, John A Couceiro and Ken L
374:), the right of individuals and companies to establish themselves in business anywhere in the EU (articles 43–48), and the right to participate in the capital of companies situated in another Member State (article 294). The claimants also demanded an order of prohibition preventing the
1777:
532:
and the impact of the ruling on parliamentary sovereignty. Lord Goff acknowledged that, as a matter of Community law, interim relief had to be available in principle against the Crown, and the basis for granting it lay in section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (now titled the
494:
commencement before the divisional court to the House of Lords' judgment. The questions posed essentially asked whether, in the circumstances of the case, Community law overrode English law and either empowered or obliged UK courts to grant the injunction claimed by Factortame.
1173:
which allows the European Court, or any other institution of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom ... That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions."
681:
the breach. The ECJ rejected the contentions that the right to reparation required the introduction of legislation by the EU, and that the availability of damages should be decided, in each case, on the basis of the national law of the state in question.
615:
On 25 July 1991 the ECJ gave its ruling in case C-221/89 on the question referred by the High Court, namely whether the conditions for registration of fishing vessels under the 1988 Act were compatible with Community law. Agreeing with Advocate-General
406:
under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome (case C-221/89). It asked whether requirements as to nationality, domicile and control imposed by a Member State as conditions for the registration of fishing vessels were compatible with Community law (now:
1912:, Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93: Brasserie du PĂŞcheur SA v Federal Republic of Germany; and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others" 5 Mar 1996. Tesauro, AG; 6 other EU member state governments; the
287:" which set maximum quotas of fish which could be caught by each member state, and the British Fishing Boats Act 1983 (BFBA). In 1985, with Spanish accession, everything changed and the BFBA no longer applied to the Spanish fishermen.
343:
As from 31 March 1989, fishing vessel registrations under the 1894 Act would lapse and the owners would be required to re-register under the 1988 Act. None of Factortame's vessels could satisfy the new requirements and an action for
573:
to the effect that there now exist two forms of Acts of Parliament: ordinary acts which can be repealed impliedly, and "statutory" or "constitutional" acts which can only be repealed expressly. (See in particular the judgment of
1482:
1082:
1151:
The issue of whether the UK Parliament or the European Court of Justice had ultimate sovereignty over European Community laws which applied to the UK is still an area of intense legal debate and conflicting views. Prior to
586:
not striking down a domestic Act of Parliament, but were instead attempting to interpret legislation in a manner compatible with the Treaty obligations that arise under the European Communities Act 1972 (as proposed by
543:
Addressing the public criticism expressed following the ECJ's decision and the alleged erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty, Lord Bridge remarked that such comments were "based on a misconception", and that under the
793:
and aggravated damages caused by HMG's breach of Community law. Factortame had argued that claims for discrimination under European law were broadly comparable to claims for discrimination to individuals under the
411:). At the same time, the Court granted an injunction against the application of the 1988 Act pending a ruling by the ECJ. Giving his judgment, Lord Justice Neill stated that although Community law is part of
308:
using them in the fishing zone. Most of these vessels landed their catches in Spain, but as the fish were caught in UK waters, they counted against the UK fishing quota, a practice known as "quota hopping".
336:
to be the case, three conditions had to be fulfilled: (i) the vessel must be British-owned; (ii) the vessel had to be managed and its operations had to be directed and controlled from the UK; and (iii) any
1581:
By convention, for judicial review cases the monarch appears in the title of the case as the nominal bringer of the action. In reality the action was brought by Factortame Limited against the Secretary of
552:, the House of Lords was now accomplishing the same task in giving judgment for Factortame. There was nothing new, in this respect, in recognising the supremacy of EU law in the areas in which it applies.
1470:
1456:
1430:
1070:
1056:
1030:
1185:
311:
In order to put an end to this practice, the British Government enacted a series of measures which proved largely ineffective. In two cases the High Court of Justice of England and Wales asked
1614:
2258:
17:
798:. This was not accepted by Judge Toulmin who emphasised that such damages were only awarded in cases where the breach in question had caused harm to the claimant's self-esteem.
656:
162:(then Community Law) by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on
415:
and prevails in the event of a conflict, it was open to argument whether a conflict existed in this case; a national court would have to take a decision which preserves the
1189:(1963) their ruling states that "the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights".
560:
statutes conflicted, the traditional approach would have been to apply the later statute on the basis that the inconsistent parts of the earlier statute had been repealed.
685:
reparation would depend on the nature of the breach of Community law in question and the extent of the discretion available to the State in question. The conditions are:
473:) who upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on the grounds that English law did not contain any rule allowing a preliminary injunction against the application of an
236:
principle, that wrongs by violation of a public body generate a private law claim from anybody who has suffered a directly connected loss (also known as the doctrine of
2278:
2273:
1236:
836:
1317:
1305:
917:
905:
470:
744:
382:
removed that right. It was also contended that the 1988 Act was consistent with the Community policy on fisheries. In the event this assertion proved false.
736:
716:
712:
434:
2298:
2123:
2263:
1227:
827:
438:
1156:(31 January 2020), the UK recognised the primacy of the European Court of Justice for those areas of law in which the EU has competency. However, in
2288:
2283:
458:
272:
185:
1873:, 2nd ECJ decision in re Factortame. David Vaughan, Gerald Barling, David Anderson, and Stephen Swabey for the Applicant, Timothy J.G. Pratt, Sir
230:, where the House of Lords ruled that damages could be awarded against a member state like the UK for losses suffered by private parties under the
2047:"Select Committee on European Scrutiny Minutes of Evidence: Examination of Witnesses (Questions 229–239): Rt hon Jack Straw MP and Mr David Frost"
462:
2013:
Steiner, Josephine; Lorna Woods; Christian Twigg-Flesner (2006). "Section 4.4.2: Effect of the European Communities Act 1972, s.2(1) and (4)".
1618:
2022:
1855:
1819:
454:
2088:
SA Apter: "INTERIM MEASURES IN EC LAW: Towards a Complete and Autonomous System of Provisional Judicial Protection before National Courts?"
1406:
1006:
790:
466:
422:
349:
1136:
case has produced large amounts of academic debate as to whether it can be reconciled with the idea of legislative supremacy as stated by
594:). It remains to be seen how the courts would respond to an Act of Parliament intentionally contradicting EC law. However, in the case of
275:
to ensure modernisation of the sector. In 1976 it was agreed that, as from 1 January the following year, member states would extend their
366:
declaring that the offending part of the 1988 Act could not be applied to them on the grounds that such application would be contrary to
1558:
756:
740:
1647:
1553:
1501:
1170:
1101:
545:
196:'s ("MSA") requirement for UK fishing vessels to be 75% UK owned. After the ECJ confirmed the incompatibility of the Act with EU law,
167:
1366:
966:
779:
565:
644:
1183:(1964), the ECJ stated that "the Members States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields". In Case 26/62
267:, which began in 1970, aimed at creating a common market for fisheries products by providing for free access to the waters of all
1673:
478:
375:
155:
93:
1394:
1220:
994:
820:
748:
214:, where the ECJ held that the provisions of the MSA were required to be disapplied by the UK courts if they contravened EU law.
1543:
1444:
1044:
587:
582:.) Nevertheless, there is no restriction on the ability of Parliament to expressly repeal the European Communities Act 1972.
345:
370:
rights under EU law, specifically the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of nationality (article 7 of the
2293:
201:
2134:
eur-lex.europa.eu: Official Journal of the European Union 28 Dec 2013 – full text of Common Fisheries Policy (as amended)
1348:
948:
2133:
18:
Brasserie du PĂŞcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd
2268:
695:
there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation and the damage sustained by the injured party.
2046:
1963:
604:
suggested that, should such an event occur, the courts would be obliged to obey the domestic law over the European.
246:, holding that claims after 1996 were statute-barred, since claims against a member state were like other claims in
2106:
1807:
1213:
813:
601:
549:
332:
295:
193:
163:
2191:
1984:
1839:
1357:
1330:
1141:
957:
930:
556:
399:
189:
129:
58:
290:
From 1980, as seen earlier, Galician fishermen began to enter the UK fishing market by taking advantage of easy
1921:
1740:
752:
728:
1898:
1870:
1732:
1728:
670:
627:
The UK government had argued that the conditions imposed by the 1988 Act were justified on the basis that the
504:
481:'s sovereign will". Secondly, the court had no jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction against the Crown.
328:
320:
1909:
1198:(i.e. the right to decide the limits of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice) has now been settled.
512:
1847:
1538:
1511:
1285:
1111:
885:
795:
628:
276:
264:
137:
1177:
That European law had primacy over UK law has been stated many times in European courts. In ECJ Case 6/64
533:
417:
363:
205:
2128:
1522:
1295:
1158:
1122:
895:
395:
337:
312:
284:
181:
1748:
2064:
1699:
1989:
665:
442:
1744:
1913:
1890:
1886:
1878:
1764:
1756:
1382:
1273:
1266:
1256:
1194:
1145:
982:
873:
866:
856:
783:
251:
221:
2062:
I think your Committee will be familiar with what Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, said in
1917:
1276:
876:
1533:
408:
403:
232:
159:
166:, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an
2018:
1925:
1882:
1851:
1815:
1760:
1339:
939:
724:
651:
596:
575:
474:
170:
pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.
1894:
1269:
869:
732:
500:
497:
299:
1651:
188:(which functioned as the final court of appeal prior to 2009) both made a reference to the
2219:
1929:
237:
151:
2224:
220:, where the ECJ held that a member state could be liable for damages in an action by the
2243:
2186:
2158:
1724:
115:
99:
2205:
1874:
1752:
1736:
739:) which rejected the appeal on 8 April 1998. HMG appealed again to the House of Lords (
371:
304:
291:
105:
54:
1677:
43:
2252:
1778:"The tension between the supremacy of EU law and Parliament's continuing sovereignty"
1165:
This view of the UK's ultimate sovereignty was supported by Lord Justice Laws in the
367:
268:
133:
2168:
1205:
805:
2229:
1434:
1179:
1034:
158:
by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached
110:
2163:
2153:
88:
2129:
legislation.gov.uk: photographic copy of "Merchant Shipping Act 1988", 3 May 1988
1802:
1246:
1137:
846:
617:
412:
391:
280:
2042:
1942:
1700:"C-213/89 – The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame"
720:
508:
453:
The case was brought on 18 May 1989 by Factortame before the House of Lords (
1563:
173:
The litigation was lengthy, and is typically divided into five main stages:
689:
the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
1484:
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
1084:
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
1814:(4th ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 367f.
1784:. Law Wales (a collaboration between the Welsh Government and Westlaw UK)
2124:
Companies House: company registration information for Factortame Limited
2017:(9th ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 79.
789:
The judge also rejected an attempt by Factortame to obtain damages for
2087:
676:
In its judgment delivered on 5 March 1996, the court of nine justices
1153:
378:
from treating its registrations under the 1894 Act as having ceased.
283:
led to the introduction of certain controls, notably the concept of "
2171:
R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2)
303:
Couceiro, all British nationals with Spanish ancestry resident and
563:
Such an interpretation of the case is supported by statements in
247:
1209:
809:
518:
On 19 June 1990 the ECJ court (as "full court" of 11 justices)
1593:
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (No 2)
1186:
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen
654:
had asked for a ruling on a similar question in the case of
727:. The decision was appealed by HMG to the Court of Appeal (
1889:
for the Respondent, and six national governments plus the
1763:
for the Respondent; as well as the state of Ireland, the
315:
to ECJ; based on which both cases were lost by HMG – see
660:
and so the two cases (C46/93 and C48/93) were joined.
69:
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport
147:
R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport
663:
At this time the ECJ had just delivered judgment in
123:
82:
74:
64:
50:
36:
1987:(1996). "Sovereignty – Evolution or Revolution?".
1964:"House of Lords, Hansard Debates, 8 February 2001"
1943:"BBC News – EUROPE – Spanish win legal fish fight"
1169:case, when he said that "there is nothing in the
657:Brasserie du PĂŞcheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
204:over national law in the areas where the EU has
37:R (Factortame Ltd) v Sec. of State for Transport
2259:Court of Justice of the European Union case law
1144:argues that the Factortame judgment alters the
782:(a division of the High Court) held, under the
421:. HMG disapproved and elevated the case to the
1591:The House of Lords judgment is referred to as
1319:Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
1307:European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
919:Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
907:European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
208:because of the UK acceding to the EU treaties.
2192:2nd ECJ decision, official version at eur-lex
1725:bailii.org: 1st ECJ decision in re Factortame
1458:R (HS2 Action Alliance) v Transport Secretary
1221:
1058:R (HS2 Action Alliance) v Transport Secretary
821:
8:
2164:House of Lords 2nd judgment, 11 October 1990
1706:. THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
1648:"Thomas Cooper Law: "FACTORTAME BACKGROUND""
711:The matter came back to a divisional court (
294:registration requirements contained in the
2187:bailii.org: ECJ's 2nd ruling, 25 July 1991
1228:
1214:
1206:
828:
814:
806:
778:On 27 November 2000, Judge Toulmin in the
42:
33:
692:the breach must be sufficiently serious;
2150:Court of Appeal judgment, 22 March 1989
1674:"Thomas Cooper Law: "ABOUT FACTORTAME""
1574:
390:On 10 March 1989 the divisional court (
2279:United Kingdom constitutional case law
2274:United Kingdom administrative case law
1642:
1640:
1638:
1636:
1192:The question of who has the ultimate
7:
2154:House of Lords judgment, 18 May 1989
1419:R (Factortame) v Transport Secretary
1407:Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd
1019:R (Factortame) v Transport Secretary
1007:Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd
352:of the High Court in December 1988.
1559:History of the British constitution
650:state. At around the same time the
503:argued his opinion on 17 May 1990 (
200:saw the House of Lords confirm the
2264:Constitution of the United Kingdom
2147:High Court judgment, 10 March 1989
1916:, 8 lawyers for 97 Claimants, and
1554:Constitution of the United Kingdom
592:Garland v British Rail Engineering
25:
2111:EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials
1812:EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials
1367:Greater London Authority Act 1999
1167:Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
967:Greater London Authority Act 1999
780:Technology and Construction Court
566:Thoburn v Sunderland City Council
555:These comments were perceived by
362:Factortame Ltd sought, first, a
2289:1990 in United Kingdom case law
2284:1989 in United Kingdom case law
2230:House of Lords, 28 October 1999
1842:; Forsyth, Christopher (2000).
1395:Pickin v British Railways Board
995:Pickin v British Railways Board
348:was brought by its owners in a
2299:Spain–United Kingdom relations
2220:Divisional Court, 31 July 1997
2206:ECJ's 3rd ruling, 5 March 1996
1544:Supremacy (European Union law)
1445:R (Jackson) v Attorney General
1045:R (Jackson) v Attorney General
645:Brasserie du PĂŞcheur v Germany
571:Hunt v Hackney Borough Council
1:
2225:Court of Appeal, 8 April 1998
2051:House of Commons Publications
2011:ICR 785 at p. 789, quoted in
1502:European Communities Act 1972
1471:R (Miller) v Brexit Secretary
1102:European Communities Act 1972
1071:R (Miller) v Brexit Secretary
546:European Communities Act 1972
398:) referred the matter to the
192:(ECJ) on the legality of the
2244:High Court, 27 November 2000
1767:, and Rawlings Trawling Ltd.
1349:Government of Wales Act 1998
949:Government of Wales Act 1998
1810:; Gráinne de Búrca (2007).
78:March 1989 to November 2000
2315:
2159:ECJ's ruling, 19 June 1990
2113:(5th edn OUP 2011) 287–288
1431:R (Simms) v Home Secretary
1031:R (Simms) v Home Secretary
642:
527:Back to the House of Lords
333:Merchant Shipping Act 1988
296:Merchant Shipping Act 1894
194:Merchant Shipping Act 1988
164:British constitutional law
1805:1 AC 603, 658; quoted in
1519:
1509:
1499:
1479:
1467:
1453:
1441:
1427:
1415:
1403:
1391:
1379:
1364:
1358:Northern Ireland Act 1998
1355:
1346:
1337:
1331:Local Government Act 1972
1328:
1315:
1303:
1293:
1283:
1264:
1254:
1244:
1237:Parliamentary sovereignty
1119:
1109:
1099:
1079:
1067:
1053:
1041:
1027:
1015:
1003:
991:
979:
964:
958:Northern Ireland Act 1998
955:
946:
937:
931:Local Government Act 1972
928:
915:
903:
893:
883:
864:
854:
844:
837:Parliamentary sovereignty
489:European Court of Justice
400:European Court of Justice
190:European Court of Justice
156:United Kingdom government
130:Parliamentary sovereignty
128:
59:European Court of Justice
41:
1171:European Communities Act
1848:Oxford University Press
1539:1993 Cherbourg incident
1512:European Union Act 2011
1286:United Nations Act 1946
1112:European Union Act 2011
886:United Nations Act 1946
796:Race Relations Act 1976
629:Common Fisheries Policy
285:total allowable catches
277:exclusive economic zone
265:Common Fisheries Policy
154:case taken against the
138:Common Fisheries Policy
1550:doctrine of German law
534:Senior Courts Act 1981
364:preliminary injunction
2101:EU Law for UK Lawyers
2009:Macarthys Ltd v Smith
1523:UK constitutional law
1296:Human Rights Act 1998
1159:Macarthys Ltd v Smith
1123:UK constitutional law
896:Human Rights Act 1998
433:The Court of Appeal (
313:preliminary questions
224:for breach of EU law.
29:UK-Spanish legal case
2294:House of Lords cases
1990:Law Quarterly Review
1492:Repealed legislation
1092:Repealed legislation
652:German Federal Court
2103:(Hart 2011) 279–286
2045:(8 February 2005).
1932:for the Respondent.
1914:European Commission
1891:European Commission
1879:Christopher Bellamy
1765:European Commission
1757:Christopher Bellamy
1747:for the Applicant;
1383:Stockdale v Hansard
1274:Parliament Act 1949
1267:Parliament Act 1911
1257:Bill of Rights 1689
1195:kompetenz-kompetenz
1146:Rule of Recognition
983:Stockdale v Hansard
874:Parliament Act 1949
867:Parliament Act 1911
857:Bill of Rights 1689
784:Limitation Act 1980
252:Limitation Act 1980
222:European Commission
2269:Fisheries case law
1899:ECLI:EU:C:1991:113
1871:ECLI:EU:C:1991:320
1844:Administrative Law
1729:ECLI:EU:C:1990:257
1680:on 16 January 2014
1654:on 16 January 2014
1534:European Union law
791:injury to feelings
671:ECLI:EU:C:1991:428
505:ECLI:EU:C:1990:216
409:European Union law
404:preliminary ruling
376:Secretary of State
368:directly effective
329:ECLI:EU:C:1989:651
321:ECLI:EU:C:1989:650
233:Francovich v Italy
160:European Union law
2169:The Law Reports:
2024:978-0-19-927959-3
1985:Wade, Sir William
1926:Christopher Vajda
1910:ECLI:EU:C:1996:79
1883:Christopher Vajda
1857:978-0-19-876525-7
1840:Wade, Sir William
1821:978-0-19-927389-8
1761:Christopher Vajda
1749:Timothy J G Pratt
1615:"Common Policies"
1529:
1528:
1340:Scotland Act 1998
1129:
1128:
940:Scotland Act 1998
774:limitation issues
725:exemplary damages
597:Macarthys v Smith
513:ECLI:EU:C:1978:49
475:Act of Parliament
435:Lord Donaldson MR
300:57 & 58 Vict.
202:primacy of EU law
168:Act of Parliament
143:
142:
16:(Redirected from
2306:
2109:and G de BĂşrca,
2071:
2070:
2065:McCarthy v Smith
2059:
2057:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2007:Lord Denning in
2005:
1999:
1998:
1981:
1975:
1974:
1972:
1970:
1960:
1954:
1953:
1951:
1949:
1939:
1933:
1922:Stephen Richards
1907:
1901:
1895:Advocate-General
1868:
1862:
1861:
1836:
1830:
1829:
1800:
1794:
1793:
1791:
1789:
1774:
1768:
1722:
1716:
1715:
1713:
1711:
1696:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1685:
1676:. Archived from
1670:
1664:
1663:
1661:
1659:
1650:. Archived from
1644:
1631:
1630:
1628:
1626:
1617:. Archived from
1611:
1605:
1602:
1596:
1589:
1583:
1579:
1485:
1459:
1386:(1839) 9A&E1
1320:
1308:
1247:Magna Carta 1215
1230:
1223:
1216:
1207:
1142:Sir William Wade
1085:
1059:
986:(1839) 9A&E1
920:
908:
847:Magna Carta 1215
830:
823:
816:
807:
707:right to damages
557:Sir William Wade
498:Advocate-General
350:divisional court
273:structural funds
271:and introducing
46:
34:
21:
2314:
2313:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2249:
2248:
2120:
2079:
2074:
2055:
2053:
2041:
2040:
2036:
2025:
2012:
2006:
2002:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1947:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1930:Rhodri Thompson
1908:
1904:
1869:
1865:
1858:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1822:
1806:
1801:
1797:
1787:
1785:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1723:
1719:
1709:
1707:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1683:
1681:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1657:
1655:
1646:
1645:
1634:
1624:
1622:
1613:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1530:
1525:
1515:
1505:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1483:
1475:
1463:
1457:
1449:
1437:
1423:
1411:
1399:
1387:
1375:
1374:
1372:Court judgments
1369:
1360:
1351:
1342:
1333:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1311:
1306:
1299:
1289:
1279:
1260:
1250:
1240:
1234:
1204:
1130:
1125:
1115:
1105:
1095:
1094:
1089:
1083:
1075:
1063:
1057:
1049:
1037:
1023:
1011:
999:
987:
975:
974:
972:Court judgments
969:
960:
951:
942:
933:
924:
923:
918:
911:
906:
899:
889:
879:
860:
850:
840:
834:
804:
776:
709:
647:
641:
639:state liability
613:
590:in the case of
529:
491:
451:
431:
429:Court of Appeal
423:Court of Appeal
418:status quo ante
388:
360:
346:judicial review
331:). In 1988 the
261:
238:state liability
152:judicial review
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2312:
2310:
2302:
2301:
2296:
2291:
2286:
2281:
2276:
2271:
2266:
2261:
2251:
2250:
2247:
2246:
2240:
2239:
2233:
2232:
2227:
2222:
2216:
2215:
2209:
2208:
2202:
2201:
2199:Factortame III
2195:
2194:
2189:
2183:
2182:
2176:
2175:
2166:
2161:
2156:
2151:
2148:
2144:
2143:
2137:
2136:
2131:
2126:
2119:
2118:External links
2116:
2115:
2114:
2104:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2084:
2083:
2078:
2075:
2073:
2072:
2034:
2023:
2000:
1976:
1955:
1934:
1902:
1875:Nicholas Lyell
1863:
1856:
1850:. p. 28.
1831:
1820:
1795:
1769:
1753:Nicholas Lyell
1745:Stephen Swabey
1741:David Anderson
1737:Gerald Barling
1717:
1691:
1665:
1632:
1621:on 11 May 2009
1606:
1597:
1584:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1551:
1541:
1536:
1527:
1526:
1520:
1517:
1516:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1490:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1370:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1326:
1325:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1304:
1301:
1300:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1235:
1233:
1232:
1225:
1218:
1210:
1203:
1200:
1127:
1126:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1090:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1004:
1001:
1000:
992:
989:
988:
980:
977:
976:
970:
965:
962:
961:
956:
953:
952:
947:
944:
943:
938:
935:
934:
929:
926:
925:
916:
913:
912:
904:
901:
900:
894:
891:
890:
884:
881:
880:
865:
862:
861:
855:
852:
851:
845:
842:
841:
835:
833:
832:
825:
818:
810:
803:
800:
775:
769:
708:
702:
697:
696:
693:
690:
643:Main article:
640:
637:Factortame III
634:
612:
606:
528:
525:
490:
487:
450:
449:House of Lords
447:
430:
427:
387:
384:
372:Treaty of Rome
359:
354:
292:fishing vessel
281:fishing stocks
260:
257:
256:
255:
241:
225:
218:Factortame III
215:
209:
186:House of Lords
141:
140:
126:
125:
121:
120:
119:
118:
113:
108:
102:
96:
91:
84:
80:
79:
76:
72:
71:
66:
65:Full case name
62:
61:
55:House of Lords
52:
48:
47:
39:
38:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2311:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2280:
2277:
2275:
2272:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2262:
2260:
2257:
2256:
2254:
2245:
2242:
2241:
2238:
2235:
2234:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2213:Factortame IV
2211:
2210:
2207:
2204:
2203:
2200:
2197:
2196:
2193:
2190:
2188:
2185:
2184:
2181:
2180:Factortame II
2178:
2177:
2174:
2172:
2167:
2165:
2162:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2152:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2127:
2125:
2122:
2121:
2117:
2112:
2108:
2105:
2102:
2098:
2097:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2080:
2076:
2069:
2067:
2066:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2043:Jack Straw MP
2038:
2035:
2031:
2026:
2020:
2016:
2010:
2004:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1991:
1986:
1980:
1977:
1965:
1959:
1956:
1944:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1906:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1887:Andrew Macnab
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1823:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1799:
1796:
1783:
1779:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:David Vaughan
1731:Tesauro, AG;
1730:
1726:
1721:
1718:
1705:
1701:
1695:
1692:
1679:
1675:
1669:
1666:
1653:
1649:
1643:
1641:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1620:
1616:
1610:
1607:
1604:(1990) C-6/90
1601:
1598:
1594:
1588:
1585:
1578:
1575:
1569:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1498:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1466:
1461:
1460:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1426:
1421:
1420:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1402:
1397:
1396:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1321:
1314:
1309:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1231:
1226:
1224:
1219:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1201:
1199:
1197:
1196:
1190:
1188:
1187:
1182:
1181:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1155:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1124:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1002:
997:
996:
990:
985:
984:
978:
973:
968:
963:
959:
954:
950:
945:
941:
936:
932:
927:
921:
914:
909:
902:
897:
892:
887:
882:
878:
875:
871:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
843:
838:
831:
826:
824:
819:
817:
812:
811:
808:
801:
799:
797:
792:
787:
785:
781:
773:
770:
768:
767:ÂŁ26 million.
764:
760:
758:
754:
750:
749:Lord Hoffmann
746:
745:Lord Nicholls
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:Lord Woolf MR
726:
722:
718:
714:
706:
705:Factortame IV
703:
701:
694:
691:
688:
687:
686:
682:
679:
674:
672:
668:
667:
661:
659:
658:
653:
646:
638:
635:
633:
630:
625:
621:
619:
611:compatibility
610:
609:Factortame II
607:
605:
603:
599:
598:
593:
589:
583:
581:
577:
572:
568:
567:
561:
558:
553:
551:
547:
541:
537:
535:
526:
524:
521:
516:
514:
510:
506:
502:
499:
495:
488:
486:
482:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
448:
446:
444:
440:
436:
428:
426:
424:
420:
419:
414:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
385:
383:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
358:
355:
353:
351:
347:
341:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
309:
306:
301:
297:
293:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:member states
266:
258:
253:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
234:
229:
228:Factortame IV
226:
223:
219:
216:
213:
212:Factortame II
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:and then the
183:
179:
176:
175:
174:
171:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
139:
135:
134:direct effect
131:
127:
122:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
103:
101:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
81:
77:
73:
70:
67:
63:
60:
56:
53:
49:
45:
40:
35:
32:
27:
19:
2237:Factortame V
2236:
2212:
2198:
2179:
2170:
2141:Factortame I
2140:
2110:
2100:
2063:
2061:
2054:. Retrieved
2050:
2037:
2028:
2014:
2008:
2003:
1994:
1988:
1979:
1967:. Retrieved
1958:
1946:. Retrieved
1937:
1918:J.E. Collins
1905:
1866:
1843:
1834:
1825:
1811:
1798:
1786:. Retrieved
1781:
1772:
1720:
1708:. Retrieved
1703:
1694:
1682:. Retrieved
1678:the original
1668:
1656:. Retrieved
1652:the original
1625:26 September
1623:. Retrieved
1619:the original
1609:
1600:
1592:
1587:
1577:
1547:
1491:
1481:
1469:
1455:
1443:
1429:
1418:
1417:
1410:3 All ER 484
1405:
1393:
1381:
1371:
1193:
1191:
1184:
1180:Costa v ENEL
1178:
1176:
1166:
1164:
1157:
1150:
1133:
1131:
1091:
1081:
1069:
1055:
1043:
1029:
1018:
1017:
1010:3 All ER 484
1005:
993:
981:
971:
802:Significance
788:
777:
772:Factortame V
771:
765:
761:
733:Schiemann LJ
710:
704:
698:
683:
677:
675:
664:
662:
655:
648:
636:
626:
622:
614:
608:
602:Lord Denning
595:
591:
588:Lord Diplock
584:
579:
570:
564:
562:
554:
542:
538:
530:
519:
517:
496:
492:
483:
471:Lord Jauncey
459:Lord Brandon
452:
432:
416:
402:(ECJ) for a
389:
380:
361:
357:Factortame I
356:
342:
324:
316:
310:
289:
262:
244:Factortame V
243:
231:
227:
217:
211:
197:
180:, where the
178:Factortame I
177:
172:
146:
145:
144:
68:
31:
26:
2099:A O'Neill,
2030:Parliament.
1808:Craig, Paul
1803:Lord Bridge
713:Hobhouse LJ
463:Lord Oliver
455:Lord Bridge
413:English law
327:(C-216/87,
2253:Categories
2077:References
1969:19 January
1893:. Opinion
1846:. Oxford:
1546:, and the
1134:Factortame
753:Lord Clyde
741:Lord Slynn
666:Francovich
550:directives
509:Simmenthal
479:Parliament
439:Bingham LJ
386:High Court
250:under the
206:competence
198:Factortame
182:High Court
2056:9 January
1782:Law Wales
1704:InfoCuria
1595:1 AC 603.
1564:Pescanova
757:Lord Hope
737:Walker LJ
717:Collins J
467:Lord Goff
396:Hodgson J
338:charterer
319:(C-3/87,
305:domiciled
263:The EU's
83:Citations
2173:1 AC 603
2082:Articles
1948:29 April
1788:30 March
1710:30 March
1684:29 April
1658:29 April
1488:UKSC 24
1259:arts 1–4
1202:See also
1088:UKSC 24
859:arts 1–4
721:Moses LJ
392:Neill LJ
124:Keywords
116:EWHC 179
100:C-221/89
94:C-213/89
2107:P Craig
1548:Solange
1448:UKHL 56
1435:UKHL 33
1322:s 2(1)
1310:s 38(1)
1239:sources
1048:UKHL 56
1035:UKHL 33
922:s 2(1)
910:s 38(1)
839:sources
678:en banc
580:Thoburn
576:Laws LJ
520:en banc
501:Tesauro
443:Mann LJ
325:Jaderow
317:Agegate
111:UKHL 44
106:C-46/93
104:(1996)
98:(1991)
75:Decided
2021:
2015:EU Law
1997:: 574.
1885:, and
1854:
1818:
1751:, Sir
1743:, and
1582:State.
1474:UKSC 5
1462:UKSC 3
1422:UKHL 7
1398:AC 765
1298:ss 3–6
1270:ss 1–2
1154:Brexit
1074:UKSC 5
1062:UKSC 3
1022:UKHL 7
998:AC 765
898:ss 3–6
870:ss 1–2
618:Mischo
323:) and
150:was a
89:UKHL 7
2094:Books
1570:Notes
1249:cl 12
1138:Dicey
849:cl 12
259:Facts
51:Court
2058:2008
2019:ISBN
1971:2008
1950:2017
1928:and
1852:ISBN
1816:ISBN
1790:2019
1712:2019
1686:2017
1660:2017
1627:2010
1521:see
1514:s 18
1272:and
1132:The
1121:see
1114:s 18
872:and
755:and
735:and
719:and
569:and
469:and
441:and
394:and
248:tort
1995:112
1504:s 2
1288:s 1
1277:s 1
1104:s 2
888:s 1
877:s 1
759:).
578:in
536:).
298:. (
2255::
2060:.
2049:.
2027:.
1993:.
1924:,
1920:,
1897::
1881:,
1877:,
1824:.
1780:.
1759:,
1755:,
1739:,
1735:,
1727:.
1702:.
1635:^
1148:.
1140:.
751:,
747:,
743:,
731:,
715:,
600:,
465:,
461:,
457:,
437:,
425:.
240:).
136:,
132:,
57:,
1973:.
1952:.
1860:.
1792:.
1714:.
1688:.
1662:.
1629:.
1229:e
1222:t
1215:v
829:e
822:t
815:v
669:(
254:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
