The United Kingdom: judgment of the Supreme Court of 24 September 2019 in the case of legality of proroguing the parliament, ref. no. [2019] UKSC 41

被引：0

作者：

Rulka, Marcin ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Wyzsza Szkola Kadr Menedzerskich Koninie, Konin, Poland

来源：

PRZEGLAD SEJMOWY | 2020年 / 01期

关键词：

parliament; United Kingdom; Brexit; parliamentary sessions;

D O I：

10.31268/PS.2020.13

中图分类号：

D9 [法律]; DF [法律];

学科分类号：

0301 ;

摘要：

The case concerned three key issues. First, is prorogation of parliament subject to court jurisdiction? Second, what are the restrictions on exercising the right to prorogation of the Parliament? Third, did in this particular case the prorogation prevent the Parliament, with no justified reason, from exercising its role? The judges decided that the recommendation on the prorogation of the Parliament presented to the Queen by the Prime Minister was unlawful and had no legal consequences, i.e., they concluded that there was no suspension of parliament at all and the session was therefore still ongoing.

引用

页码：211 / 225

页数：15

共 27 条

[1] Commentary to the decision of the Supreme Court of 13 November 2019, ref. No. I NSW 152/19
Bucon, Pawel
PRZEGLAD SEJMOWY, 2020, (02): : 183 - 189
[2] Commentary to the decision of the Supreme Court of 5 November 2019, ref. No. I NSW 136/19
Bucon, Pawel
PRZEGLAD SEJMOWY, 2020, (04): : 205 - 214
[3] “Shanks v. Unilever”Decision of the Supreme Court 23 October 2019 – Case No. [2019] UKSC 45
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2020, 51 : 107 - 108
[4] “Actavis v. ICOS”Decision of the Supreme Court 27 March 2019 – Case No. [2019] UKSC 15
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2019, 50 : 1012 - 1013
[5] Commentary to the resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 22 October 2019, ref. no. I NSNZP 2/19
Widlo, Jacek
PRZEGLAD SEJMOWY, 2020, (03): : 263 - 274
[6] "Actavis v. ICOS" Decision of the Supreme Court 27 March 2019-Case No. [2019] UKSC 15
不详
IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW, 2019, 50 (08) : 1012 - 1013
[7] Commentary to the Resolution of a panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 11 December 2019, Ref. No. III UZP 7/19
Medrala, Malgorzata
Martiszek, Tomasz
PRZEGLAD SEJMOWY, 2021, (05): : 201 - 215
[8] "Shanks v. Unilever" Decision of the Supreme Court23 October 2019-Case No. [2019] UKSC 45
不详
IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW, 2020, 51 (01) : 107 - 108
[9] “Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Kymab”Decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 24 June 2020 – Case No. [2020] UKSC 27
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2021, 52 (3) : 345 - 346
[10] “Mediaset v. ITV”Decision of the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) 30 September 2019 – Case No. 504/2019
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2020, 51 : 774 - 778

← 1 2 3 →