Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:17:34.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Domestic and Community Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

P.P. Craig
Get access

Extract

The role played by the concept of legitimate expectations within administrative law has been the subject of much comment in recent years. The object of the present article is not to provide a general overview of the topic. My own views on this matter have been set out on an earlier occasion. The aim of this article is to focus more closely upon the extent to which legitimate expectations can have a substantive as well as a procedural dimension.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , July 1996 , pp. 289 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Forsyth, C. "The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations" [1988] C.L.J. 238Google ScholarElias, P. "Legitimate Expectation and Judicial Review", New Directions in Judicial Review (Jowell, and Oliver, , eds., 1988), pp. 37–50;Google ScholarCraig, P."Legitimate Expectations: A Conceptual Analysis" (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 79;Google ScholarSingh, R., "Making Legitimate Use of Legitimate Expectations" (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1215.Google Scholar

2 Note 1 above.

3 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74.

4 [1995]2A11E.R. 714.

5 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74, 92.

6 Ibid. pp. 92–93.

7 R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp. Ruddock [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1482.Google Scholar

8 R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khan [1985] 1 All E.R. 40, 46.

9 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74, 93–94.

10 Ibid. p. 94.

11 Note 4 above.

12 Pressure stocks were those species offish which were incapable of sustaining unrestricted fishing.

13 Note 7 above.

14 [1995]2A1!E.R. 714, 723.

15 Ibid. p. 724.

16 Ibid. p. 728.

17 Ibid. pp. 728–9.

18 Citing A.-G. of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 A.C. 629 by way of example.

19 [1995] 2 All E.R. 714, 729.

20 Ibid p. 731.

21 Ibid p. 732.

22 Ibid p. 731.

23 Note 7 above.

24 [1995] 2A11E.R. 714, 723.

25 R. v. Home Secretary, ex p. Briggs, Green & Hargreaves [1996] C.O.D 168.

26 Note 8 above.

27 R. v. Liverpool Corporation, ex p. Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 Q.B. 299.

28 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 74, 92.

29 Ibid. p. 94.

30 [1995] 2 All E.R. 714, 723–4.

31 [1995] 2 All E.R. 714,731–2.

32 Ibid. p. 731.

33 Ibid. p. 732.

34 [1985] 1 All E.R. 40, 46.

35 [1972] 2 Q.B. 299, 308.

36 The example has obvious similarities to R. v. Secretary of Stale for Health, ex p. US Tobacco International Inc. [1992] Q.B. 353.Google Scholar

37 I have corresponded on this issue with Sir Stephen Sedley, who prefers the approach which he adopted in the Hamble Fisheries case. The essence of Sir Stephen's argument is that the issue of legitimacy only ever arises when the governmental change of policy occurs; and that the court should be wary of substituting its view on the desired direction of policy for that of the public body. We continue to have different views on this aspect of the topic. My response to the first point is as follows: the fact that an issue only arises in court at a particular time does not mean that the substantive interests at stake only arise at that juncture. The second point I accept entirely. However, my approach outlined in the text does not lead to judicial substitution of judgment. The general legitimacy of the move from policy number one to policy number two is accepted. The live issues are whether the later policy may not have to be modified so as to accommodate the legitimate expectations of the individual, and how one expresses this conclusion.

38 [1996] C.O.D. 168.

39 Schwarze, J., European Administrative Law (Sweet & Maxwell 1992), Chap. 6.Google Scholar

40 Craig, Paul & Burca, Grainne de, EC Law, Text, Cases & Materials (Oxford 1995), pp. 349–56.Google Scholar

41 Note 39 above, p. 1120.

42 Case 98/78, Firma A. Racke v.Hauptzollaml Mainz[1979] E.C.R. 69. See also, Case 99/78, Weingul Gustav Decker KG v. Hauptzollamt Landau [1979] E.C.R. 101.

43 Where there is a pressing Community objective and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected, then retroactivity may, exceptionally, be accepted by the Court in the non-criminal context, Case C-331/88, R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health, ex p. Fedesa [1990] E.C.R. 1–4023.

44 Cases 212–217/80, Salumi [1981] E.C.R. 2735.

45 Case 224/82, Meiko-Konservenfabrik v. Federal Republic of Germany [1983] E.C.R. 2539; Case 63/83, Regina v. Kent Kirk [1984] E.C.R. 2689.

46 The distinction between actual and apparent retroactivity is sometimes expressed alternatively in terms of a division between primary and secondary retroactivity, Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital 488 U.S. 204 (1988).

47 See, e.g., Case 52/81, W. Faust v. Commission [1982] E.C.R. 3745, 3762; Case 245/81, Edeka v. Federal Republic of Germany [1982] E.C.R. 2745, 2758.

48 Note 39 above, p. 1131.

49 Case 2/75, Einfuhr-und- Vorratsslelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel v. Firma C. Mackprang [1975] E.C.R. 607.

50 Sharpston, E., "Legitimate Expectations and Economic Reality" (1990) 15 E.L.Rev. 103.Google Scholar

51 Case C-331/88, R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health, ex p. Fedesa [1990] E.C.R. 1–4023.

52 Case 120/86, Mulder v. Minister van Landbouw en Visserij [1988] E.C.R. 2321.

53 Ibid. para. 23.

54 Ibid. para. 24.

55 Cases C-104/89 & 37/90, Mulderv. Council and Commission [1992] E.C.R. 1–3061.

56 For general discussion of Article 215(2) see, Craig & de Burca, E. C. Law, Text. Cases & Materials (Oxford 1995), Chap. 12.Google Scholar

57 See also, Case C-152/88, Sofrimport Sari v. Commission [1990] E.C.R. 1–2477.

58 Case C-152/88, Sofrimport Sarlv. Commission [1990] E.C.R. 1–2477.

59 Case 74/74, CNTA SA v. Commission [1975] E.C.R. 533.

60 Ibid para. 42.

61 Ibid. para. 43.

62 As recognised by Sedley, J. in Hamble Fisheries [1995] 2 All E.R. 714, 731.Google Scholar

63 Ibid. pp. 730–2.

64 Craig, P.P., Administrative Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd ed., 1994), Chap. 18.Google Scholar

65 Schwarze, , European Administrative Law (1992), pp. 991–1025;Google ScholarHartley, T.C., The Foundations of European Community Law (Clarendon, 3rd ed., 1994), pp. 454–8.Google Scholar

66 Case 15/85, Consorzio Cooperative d' Abruzzo v. Commission [1987] E.C.R. 1005.

67 Cases 42, 49/59, SNUPATv. High Authority [1961] E.C.R. 53; Case 14/61, Hoogovens v. High Authority [1962] E.C.R. 253.