механизмы защиты

14:11 | 21-07-2014 | Jurisprudence, Politics, Privacy | 2 Comments

как и следовало ожидать, увидимся в суде:

The courts will have the final say on whether DRIP breaches human rights. And no matter what David Cameron believes, the UK has international obligations. The European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and our own Human Rights Act – all exist to defend our rights and are where we will be able to challenge DRIP.

это, в общем, и есть те самые little differences, что так упоительно не видят приверженцы обратного карго-культа.

с другой стороны, with a tin foil hat on, давайте задумаемся еще вот о чем: суверинетет Парламента — это основополагающий принцип некодифицированной Конституции Великобритании. однако, подписав акт 1972 года о вступлении в Европейский союз, Парламент Великобритании тем самым добровольно[1] ограничил собственные полномочия и обозначил господство права Еврпоейского Союза.

иными словами, поскольку существует ненулевая вероятность, что этот процесс Велибритания проиграет — или любой аналогичный в будущем — то не с этим ли связана очередная волна настроений и размышлений о возможном выходе Великобритании из ЕС? ингсоц-то, очевидно, куда проще строить на пару с NSA — а не с ECJ.

 


  1. Lord Bridge of Harwich in R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport:

    Some public comments on the decision of the Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdic‚tion 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 invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. But such comments are based upon 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. Similarly, when decisions of the Court of Justice have exposed areas of United Kingdom statute law which failed to implement Council directives, Parliament has always loyally accepted the obligation to make appropriate and prompt amendments. Thus there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in those areas to which they apply and to insist that, in the protection of rights under Community law, national courts must not be inhibited by rules of national law from granting interim relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of that supremacy.

     ↩

  

2 Responses to “механизмы защиты”

  1. […] же, снова, под […]

  2. […] наконец-то дошло: […]

Leave a Reply to .log : on “modern liberal democracies”