Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
4.3.3 Summary of the issue in the application for judicial review The applicants alleged that the British Government, by stipulating that 75% of the shareholders and directors had to be of British nationality, were unnecessarily acting out of all proportion to the problem. Furthermore, the British Government had infringed their Community obligations by passing a statute that contained provisions in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome 1957—notably that Member States cannot discriminate against each other (see Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the Treaty of Rome). 9.4.3.4 Summary of procedural history Factortame applied to the High Court for an order that the contravening sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, together with parts of the accompanying regulations passed to implement the statute, should be disapplied pending a full hearing of the matter. The High Court considered that the dispute raised a question requiring the interpretation of some of the articles in the EC Treaty and decided to operate their discretion to ask the European Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 to the question whether s 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 infringed Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty. This case commenced in December 1988 but the court decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court and this was sent on 10 March 1989. The High Court ordered the application of the statute to be suspended on the grounds: • of changes brought about by entry into the EC and the UK obligations under the Treaty of Rome; • of s2(1) and (4) of the ECA 1972; • that the applicants stood a good chance of winning the case and, if they had to await a ruling, the case could take two years. However, if they were unable to register and therefore unable to fish for two years they would be bankrupt; • that this case for judicial review was not a case in which damages was a remedy on offer. The government appealed against the High Court decision on the grounds that an English court cannot suspend an Act of the English Parliament before it has even been determined to be in conflict with European law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the government. Factortame was forced to appeal to the House of Lords who said that, as far as the law as they saw it was concerned, the High Court could not suspend a statute. However, as the final court of appeal, they were obliged to seek a preliminary ruling on the matter from the ECJ under Article 177 (now Article 234), of the Treaty of Rome 1957 concerning whether a ‘national court had to give relief pending a reference in a main action and, if it gave relief, did Community law give it the power to grant interim protection’? (See Chapter 5.) The ECJ replied in the affirmative that a national court had to give relief. Furthermore, the ECJ stated that if a national law stood in the way of interim relief,
DOI link for 4.3.3 Summary of the issue in the application for judicial review The applicants alleged that the British Government, by stipulating that 75% of the shareholders and directors had to be of British nationality, were unnecessarily acting out of all proportion to the problem. Furthermore, the British Government had infringed their Community obligations by passing a statute that contained provisions in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome 1957—notably that Member States cannot discriminate against each other (see Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the Treaty of Rome). 9.4.3.4 Summary of procedural history Factortame applied to the High Court for an order that the contravening sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, together with parts of the accompanying regulations passed to implement the statute, should be disapplied pending a full hearing of the matter. The High Court considered that the dispute raised a question requiring the interpretation of some of the articles in the EC Treaty and decided to operate their discretion to ask the European Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 to the question whether s 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 infringed Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty. This case commenced in December 1988 but the court decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court and this was sent on 10 March 1989. The High Court ordered the application of the statute to be suspended on the grounds: • of changes brought about by entry into the EC and the UK obligations under the Treaty of Rome; • of s2(1) and (4) of the ECA 1972; • that the applicants stood a good chance of winning the case and, if they had to await a ruling, the case could take two years. However, if they were unable to register and therefore unable to fish for two years they would be bankrupt; • that this case for judicial review was not a case in which damages was a remedy on offer. The government appealed against the High Court decision on the grounds that an English court cannot suspend an Act of the English Parliament before it has even been determined to be in conflict with European law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the government. Factortame was forced to appeal to the House of Lords who said that, as far as the law as they saw it was concerned, the High Court could not suspend a statute. However, as the final court of appeal, they were obliged to seek a preliminary ruling on the matter from the ECJ under Article 177 (now Article 234), of the Treaty of Rome 1957 concerning whether a ‘national court had to give relief pending a reference in a main action and, if it gave relief, did Community law give it the power to grant interim protection’? (See Chapter 5.) The ECJ replied in the affirmative that a national court had to give relief. Furthermore, the ECJ stated that if a national law stood in the way of interim relief,
4.3.3 Summary of the issue in the application for judicial review The applicants alleged that the British Government, by stipulating that 75% of the shareholders and directors had to be of British nationality, were unnecessarily acting out of all proportion to the problem. Furthermore, the British Government had infringed their Community obligations by passing a statute that contained provisions in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome 1957—notably that Member States cannot discriminate against each other (see Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the Treaty of Rome). 9.4.3.4 Summary of procedural history Factortame applied to the High Court for an order that the contravening sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, together with parts of the accompanying regulations passed to implement the statute, should be disapplied pending a full hearing of the matter. The High Court considered that the dispute raised a question requiring the interpretation of some of the articles in the EC Treaty and decided to operate their discretion to ask the European Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 to the question whether s 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 infringed Articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty. This case commenced in December 1988 but the court decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court and this was sent on 10 March 1989. The High Court ordered the application of the statute to be suspended on the grounds: • of changes brought about by entry into the EC and the UK obligations under the Treaty of Rome; • of s2(1) and (4) of the ECA 1972; • that the applicants stood a good chance of winning the case and, if they had to await a ruling, the case could take two years. However, if they were unable to register and therefore unable to fish for two years they would be bankrupt; • that this case for judicial review was not a case in which damages was a remedy on offer. The government appealed against the High Court decision on the grounds that an English court cannot suspend an Act of the English Parliament before it has even been determined to be in conflict with European law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the government. Factortame was forced to appeal to the House of Lords who said that, as far as the law as they saw it was concerned, the High Court could not suspend a statute. However, as the final court of appeal, they were obliged to seek a preliminary ruling on the matter from the ECJ under Article 177 (now Article 234), of the Treaty of Rome 1957 concerning whether a ‘national court had to give relief pending a reference in a main action and, if it gave relief, did Community law give it the power to grant interim protection’? (See Chapter 5.) The ECJ replied in the affirmative that a national court had to give relief. Furthermore, the ECJ stated that if a national law stood in the way of interim relief,
ABSTRACT
Factortame applied to the High Court for an order that the contravening sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, together with parts of the accompanying regulations passed to implement the statute, should be disapplied pending a full hearing of the matter.
