|
Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual or organisation. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal, is unlawful, perhaps because it has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of the decision and have it set aside (quashed) and possibly obtain damages. A court may also make mandatory orders or injunctions to compel the authority to do its duty or to stop it from acting illegally. Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that the law does not allow judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to the law of the European Union. A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore cannot apply for judicial review except in these cases (the enrolled bill rule). ==Constitutional position== The English constitutional theory, as expounded by A.V. Dicey, does not recognise a separate system of administrative courts that would review the decisions of public bodies (as in France, Germany and many other European countries). Instead, it is considered that the government should be subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary Common Law courts. At the same time, the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty does not allow for the judicial review of primary legislation (Acts of Parliament). This limits judicial review in English law to the decisions of public bodies and secondary (delegated) legislation, against which ordinary common law remedies as well as special "prerogative orders" are available in certain circumstances. The constitutional theory of judicial review has long been dominated by the doctrine of ''ultra vires'', under which a decision of a public authority can only be set aside if it exceeds the powers granted to it by Parliament. The role of the courts was seen as enforcing the "will of Parliament" in accordance with the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. However, the doctrine has been widely interpreted to include errors of law〔''Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission'' () 2 AC 147〕 and of fact and the courts have also declared the decisions taken under the Royal Prerogative to be amenable to judicial review.〔(''Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service'' ) () AC 374〕 Therefore it seems that today the constitutional position of judicial review is dictated by the need to prevent the abuse of power by the executive as well as to protect individual rights. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Judicial review in English law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|