Is Anything Lost by not Having Proportionality as a General Head of Judicial Review of Administrative Action?

Authors

  • วรพล มาลสุขุม คณะนิติศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย

Keywords:

General Head of Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Proportionality, Maximum Control, Rationality, English Administrative Law, European Union Administrative Law, French Administrative Law

Abstract

This article investigates the advantages and disadvantages on whether to have or not to have proportionality as a general head of judicial review in English, European Union and French administrative law. Firstly, it demonstrates that having proportionality as a general head to conduct judicial review is advantageous for EU law in some aspects, namely that it provides a better methodology and variation in undertaking a review. On the other hand, although the English and French systems do not apply proportionality as a general head of judicial review, they have other mechanisms in place for the courts to conduct an intensive review of the administrative decisions respectively, rationality and maximum control. Nevertheless, there are still advantages for claiming that proportionality is preferred over the other two equivalent grounds, for example the matters of legal certainty and judicial accountability. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that ‘nothing (at all)’ is lost in England and France by not having proportionality as a general head of judicial review.

Author Biography

วรพล มาลสุขุม, คณะนิติศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย

Profile

I graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours) from Thammasat University, Thailand, in 2010, and was admitted to the Thai Bar in the following year. In 2013, I was awarded a scholarship from the Royal Government of Thailand to study the Magister Juris and Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, which I have recently completed (February 2019).

My doctoral thesis entitled ‘Legal Culture, Legality and the Determination of the Grounds of Judicial Review of Administrative Action in England and Australia’ was supervised by Professor Liz Fisher, and examined by Professor Paul Craig (Oxford) and Professor John Bell (Cambridge).

I am currently a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, teaching an array of public law courses and conducting various researches in the field of Comparative Administrative Law.

Legal Practice Experience

2011 to Present, Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University

  • Law Lecturer
  • Secretary of the Faculty’s Executive Board of Director

2011 - 2012, The Legal Counsel Committee for the Prime Minister of Thailand (H.E. Abhisit Vejjajiva) and The Advisory Panel of the Thai Constitution for the Purpose of Political Harmonisation, The Royal Thai Government

  • Member of the legal researcher team, conducting research and drafting opinions in response to legal problems regarding public law

Selected Academic Works

Prohibition of Incitement to National, Racial or Religious Hatred (2010)

  • Project led by Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn and funded by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • Researcher

‘Legal Culture, Principle of Legality and Jurisdiction of the Court in Conducting Judicial Review of Administrative Action in England and Australia’ (Public Law Conference, Cambridge, July 2016)

  • Speaker

‘English Administrative Law: An Alternative Way to Study the Relationship between Law and Economic’ in Arm Tungnirun and Voraphol Malsukhum (eds), Law and Economic: The Collection of Essays in Honour of Professor Dr. Sakda Thanitcul (Wityuchon 2018)

  • Author of the chapter and Co-editor of the book

‘Judicial Activism; A Definite Evil for Thai Legal System’ (The 2019 Global Youth Intensive Program, Seoul, South Korean, June 2019)

  • Speaker

References

1. Paul Craig, “Proportionality Rationality and Review,” New Zealand Law Review, Issue 2, pp.265 (2010).
2. Paul Craig, EU Administrative Law, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p.590-591.
3. Paul Craig, Administrative Law, 8th edition (Oxford : Sweet & Maxwell, 2016), [21-027].
4. Neville L. Brown and John Bell, French Administrative Law, 5th edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp.239-267.
5. Case 8/55 Fédération Charbonnière de Belgique v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1954-6] ECR 292
6. Case 19/61 Mannesmann AG v High Authority [1962] ECR 357.
7. Gráinne de Búrca, “The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law,” Yearbook of European Law, Vol.13, Issue 1, p.105–150 (1993).
8. M Elliott and Jason Varuhas, Administrative Law : Text and Materials, 5th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp.275-278.
9. Case C-491/01 R v Secretary of State for Health, ex p British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2002] ECR I-11453.
10. Case C-331/88 Rv Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p Fedesa [1990] ECR I-4023.
11. Case C-27/00 R (on the application of Omega Air Ltd) v Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] ECR I-2569.
12. Case T-87/98 International Potash Company v Council [2000] ECR II-3179.
13. Case 415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351.
14. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 HL, 410-411.
15. Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 CA, 229.
16. Peter Cane, Administrative Law, 5th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
17. William Wade and Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law, 11th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp.303.
18. R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389.
19. R v Chief Constable of Sussex, Ex p International Trader's Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418, 452.
20. R v British Broadcasting Corporation ex parte Prolife Alliance [2003] 2 WLR 1403.
21. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Daly [2001] 2 AC 532.
22. R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment; ex parte Begbie [2000] ELR 445.
23. Nadarajah Abdi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363.
24. Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 WLR 581.
25. R (Quila and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45.
26. Regina (on the Application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] 1 AC 1312.
27. Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 1420.
28. R v Ministry of Defence, Ex p Smith [1996] QB 517, CA (Civ Div).
29. Paul Craig, “Judicial Review and Anxious Scrutiny: Foundations, Evolution and Application,” Public Law, pp.60 (2015).
30. Bank Mellat [2013] UKSC 39
31. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696.
32. Paul Craig, “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework,” Public Law, pp.467 (1997).
33. Tom Hickman, “Problems for Proportionality,” New Zealand Law Review, pp.303 (2010).
34. Jeff King, “Proportionality: A Halfway House,” New Zealand Law Review, pp.327 (2010).
35. Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 SC at [54].
36. John Bell, Sophie Boyron and Simon Whittaker, Principles of French law, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.186-188.
37. CE 19 May 1933 Benjamin, 541, D. 1933 III 345, concl. Michel.
38. CE 28 May 1971, ‘Ville nouvelle-est’, 409 concl. Braibant.
39. CE 20 October 1972 Soc. Civ. Ste Marie de l’ Assomption, 657 concl. Morissot.
40. Gerhard Dannemann, “Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences?,” The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) p.405.
41. Voraphol Malsukhum, “Legal Culture, Legality and the Determination of the Grounds of Judicial Review in England and Australia,” (DPhil : University of Oxford, 2019).

Downloads

Published

2020-05-24

Issue

Vol. 49 No. 2 (2563): Thammasat Law Journal

Section

Foreign-Language Articles

License

The manuscripts published in the Law Journal is the copyright of the Law Journal, Thammasat University

Any article or opinion appeared in the Law Journal will solely be under the responsibility of the author The Faculty of Law, Thammasat University and the editors do not need to reach in agreement or hold any responsibility.