R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
[2017] UKSC 5
Ratio Decidendi
The government could not use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 TEU and begin the UK's withdrawal from the European Union without an Act of Parliament. Since the European Communities Act 1972 had given EU law effect in domestic law, and withdrawal would remove rights conferred by Parliament, only Parliament could authorise the removal of those rights.
Fakty
Following the EU referendum in June 2016, the government announced its intention to notify the European Council under Article 50 TEU of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. Gina Miller challenged the government's power to do so using the royal prerogative (without an Act of Parliament), arguing that notification would inevitably result in the removal of rights that had been created by the European Communities Act 1972.
Podsumowanie orzeczenia
The Supreme Court held (by 8–3) that an Act of Parliament was required before the government could give notice under Article 50. The majority held that the European Communities Act 1972 was not merely an Act giving effect to treaties; it was a constitutional statute that created a new source of domestic law and rights. Since giving Article 50 notice would inevitably result in the removal of those rights, only Parliament had the constitutional authority to authorise that step. The royal prerogative could not be used to frustrate or remove rights conferred by statute.
Kluczowe cytaty
"The referendum of 2016 was of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it."
— Majority judgment
Późniejsze zastosowanie
Led directly to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which authorised the Prime Minister to give Article 50 notice.
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] (Miller II/prorogation) built on Miller I in confirming the justiciability of the exercise of prerogative powers.