Dreptul administrativ și public
Controlul judiciar, puterile organismelor publice și principiile justiției administrative.
Introducere
Dreptul public reglementează relația dintre indivizi și stat.
Principii fundamentale
Illegality — A public body must correctly understand and apply the law that regulates its decision-making power. Acting outside its statutory powers (ultra vires) renders a decision unlawful (Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]).
Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness) — A decision is irrational if it is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it' (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]). In human rights cases, proportionality provides a more structured test.
Procedural Unfairness — Decision-makers must follow fair procedures, including giving affected persons a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and ensuring no decision-maker is biased (nemo iudex in causa sua). The requirements of fairness vary with context (R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept, ex p Doody [1994]).
Legitimate Expectations — Where a public body makes a clear and unambiguous promise or adopts a consistent practice, it may be bound to honour it (R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001]). Both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations are recognised.
Proportionality — Increasingly applied alongside or instead of Wednesbury, particularly in human rights and EU-related cases. The court asks whether the measure is suitable, necessary, and strikes a fair balance (Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013]).
Standing (Locus Standi) — A claimant must have 'sufficient interest' in the matter (s.31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981). Public interest groups may have standing even without direct personal impact (R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex p World Development Movement [1995]).
Remedies — Prerogative remedies include quashing orders (certiorari), mandatory orders (mandamus), and prohibiting orders (prohibition). The court may also grant declarations and injunctions. Remedies are discretionary.
Ouster Clauses — Parliament may attempt to exclude judicial review by statute, but the courts have generally resisted total ouster (Anisminic; R (Privacy International) v IPT [2019]).
Statute cheie
Senior Courts Act 1981
Human Rights Act 1998
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Equality Act 2010
Cazuri de referință
R v North and East Devon HA, ex p Coughlan
[2001] QB 213
Scenarii comune
Local council refuses planning permission without reasons
A failure to give adequate reasons for a planning decision may constitute procedural unfairness. Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, reasons must be given for refusal. The decision can be challenged by judicial review within 6 weeks (s.288 TCPA 1990) or by appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
Government minister changes policy without consultation
Where a public body has made a clear representation that a policy will continue, affected persons may have a substantive legitimate expectation. If the change is implemented without consultation where fairness requires it, the decision may be quashed for procedural unfairness (ex p Coughlan [2001]).
Refused a licence by a public body
The refusal can be challenged by judicial review if the decision was irrational, based on irrelevant considerations, or made without following a fair procedure. The applicant must have standing (sufficient interest), act promptly (within 3 months), and usually exhaust alternative remedies first.
Freedom of Information request denied
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, public authorities must disclose information unless an exemption applies. If a request is refused, the applicant can seek an internal review, then complain to the Information Commissioner, and ultimately appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).