Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:14:57.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Directions in European Public Law edited by Jack Beatson and Takis Tridimas. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998, xvi + 191 + (index) 7 pp (hardback £30)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Carol Harlow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 558 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1998

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. G Teubner ‘Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law Or How Unifying Law Ends Up in New Divergences’ (unpublished paper).

2. Eg R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, exp World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611 Google Scholar, noted S Grosz, ‘Pergau be dammed’ (1994) 144 NLJ 1708; R v Home Secretary, exp Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 WLR 464, noted G Ganz ‘Criminal Injuries Compensation: The Constitutional Issue’ (1996) 59 MLR 95. Compare the views of SirMason, Anthony ‘Courts, Constitutions and Fundamental Rights’ in Rawlings, R (ed) Law Society and Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

3. See R v Home Secretary, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 Google ScholarPubMed. And see Jowell, J. and Lester, A ‘Beyond Wednesbury: substantive principles of administrative law’ [1987] PL 368 and ‘Proportionality: neither novel nor dangerous’ in Jowell, J. and Oliver, D (eds) New Directions in Judicial Review (London: UCL, 1988)Google Scholar.

4. The comparisons are extended in Schwarze, J. (ed) Administrative Law under European Influence (London: Sweet and Maxwell/Nomos, 1996)Google Scholar, on which Bell draws heavily.

5. On which see the classic: J Griffith ‘the Political Constitution’ (1979) 42 MLR 1.Google Scholar

6. Allison, J. A Continental Distinction in the Common Law, A Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996)Google Scholar and ‘Theoretical and Institutional Underpinnings of a Separate Administrative law’ in Taggart, M (ed) The Province of Administrative Law (Oxford: Hart, 1997)Google Scholar.

7. The main line of cases includes: Francovich and Bonafaci v Italy Joined Cases 6, 9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357; Dillenkofer v Germany Cases C-178–9, 188–90/94 [1996] ECR I-4845; Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany; R v Transport Secretary. ex p Factortame (No 4) Joined Cases C 46/93 and C 48/93 [1996] QB 404, [1996] ECR 1–1029; R v Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, exp Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd Case C 5/94 [1996] 3 WLR 787, [1996] ECR 1–2553; R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications Case C-392/93 [1996] QB 615, [1996] ECR I-1631.

8. See W van Gerven’ Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie‘ (1996) 45 ICLQ 507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and vanGerven, W et al Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law: Scope of Protection (Oxford: Hart, 1998)Google Scholar.

9. vanGerven, W Bridging the Gap between Community and National Laws: towards a principle of Homogeneity in the Field of Legal Remedies?’ (1995) 32 CML Rev 679.Google Scholar

10. Craig, P. ‘Francovich, Remedies and the Scope of Damages Liability’ (1993) 109 LQR 595 Google Scholar; ‘Once More unto the Breach: The Community, the State and Damages Liability’ (1997) 113 LQR 67. And see Craig, P. and de Burca, G EC Law Cases and Materials (Dublin: Sweet and Maxwell, 2nd edn, 1998) pp 516–531 Google Scholar.

11. Bourgoin v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716. See also Dunlop v Woolahra MC [1982] AC 158.

12. There is actionable misfeasance whenever a malicious exercise or non-exercise of statutory or common law powers by a public official causes foreseeable loss to a plaintiff see now Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3) [1996] 3 All ER 558.Google Scholar

13. The first requirement was introduced by Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany and Factortame (No 4), the second developed out of Hedley Lomas and British Telecom, above n 7.

14. Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Lid [1970] 2 WLR 1140.Google Scholar

15. Compare Harlow, C Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State’ (1996) 2 European LJ 199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is an instructive comparison to be made also with the Canadian Symposium on Government Liability published as a Special Issue at (1995) 6 National Journal of Constitutional Law 1–160.

16. The Citizen's Charter, Raising the Standard Cm 1599 (1991).

17. See Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes COM(96) 13 Bull 1/2–1996(1.3.218).

18. Taggart, M (ed) The Province of Administrative Law (Oxford: Hart, 1997)Google Scholar.

19. Majone, G Regulating Europe (London: Routledge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Everson, M Independent Agencies: Hierarchy Beaters’ (1995) I European LJ 180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A Kreher ‘Agencies in the EC - a step towards administrative integration in Europe’ (1997) 4 J European Public Policy 225.

21. Craig, P. Democracy and Rule-making within the Ec: an Empirical and Normative Assessment’ (1997) 3 European LJ 105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pedler, R and Scheafer, G (4s) Shaping European Law and Policy: The Role of Committees and Comitology in the Political Process (Maastricht: European Institute for Public Administration, 1996)Google Scholar.

22. Curtin, D ‘Betwixt and Between: Democracy and Transparency in the Governance of the European Union’ in Winter, J. et al Reforming the Treaty on European Union - The Legal Debate (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996)Google Scholar.

23. See A Partnership of Nations: The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 1996 Cm 3181, 1996, the reaction to Factortame (No 4). Compare also the lively debate over the judicial function between Judge Mancini ‘Europe: The Case for Statehood’ (1998) 4 European LJ 29 and Professor Weiler ‘Europe: The Case Against the Case for Statehood’ (1998) 4 European LJ 43.