‘Harmonising the precaution out of the precautionary principle? The need for maintaining flexibility and an interpretative role’

The precautionary principle has the potential to act as a valuable tool in food law. It operates in areas of scientific uncertainty, calling for protective measures where there are potential threats to human health (or the environment). However, the manner of the principle’s incorporation and implementation within legislation are key to its effectiveness and general legitimacy. Specific considerations include the role and nature of risk assessments, assessors, sources of evidence, divergent opinions, risk communication, other legitimate factors and the weighting of interests. However, more fundamentally, the crystallisation of approaches and removal of all flexibility would undermine the principle’s central tenets. Firstly, principles crucially play a guiding and interpretative role. Secondly, reflexive modernisation and continuing scientific uncertainty call for the precautionary principle’s continued application – precautionary measures do not end the precautionary principle’s relevance. This can be partially achieved through the legislation so as to facilitate later precautionary measures, e.g. through temporary authorisations, derogations and safeguard clauses. However, crucially, it requires that the legislation also be interpreted in light of the precautionary principle. This paper investigates the logic behind the Court of Justice of the EU’s judgments and the circumstances that enable or deter the Court in taking, or permitting, stronger precautionary approaches. Although apparently inconsistent, a number of contextual factors including the legislative provisions and actors involved influence the judgments substantially. The analysis provides insight into improving the principle’s incorporation to facilitate its continued application and maintenance of flexibility, whilst bearing in mind the general desirability of objectivity and legal certainty.

The New Architecture of EU Equality Law after CHEZ: Did the Court of Justice reconceptualise direct and indirect discrimination?

The Court of Justice’s decision of the 16 July 2015, in Case C-83/14 CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, is a critically important case for two main reasons. First, it represents a further step along the path of addressing ethnic discrimination against Roma communities in Europe, particularly in Bulgaria, where the case arises. Second, it provides interpretations (sometimes controversial interpretations) of core concepts in the EU antidiscrimination Directives that will be drawn on in the application of equality law well beyond Bulgaria, and well beyond the pressing problem of ethnic discrimination against Roma. This article focuses particularly on the second issue, the potentially broader implications of the case. In particular, it will ask whether the Court of Justice’s approach in CHEZ is subtly redrawing the boundaries of EU equality law in general, in particular by expanding the concept of direct discrimination, or whether the result and the approach adopted is sui generis, one depending on the particular context of the case and the fact that it involves allegations of discrimination against Roma, and therefore of limited general application.

Fixed-boundary constituencies and the principle of equal representation in Ireland

The process of constituency boundary revision in Ireland, designed to satisfy what is perceived as a rigid requirement that a uniform deputy-population ratio be maintained across constituencies, has traditionally consumed a great deal of the time of politicians and officials. For almost two decades after a High Court ruling in 1961, the process was a political one, was highly contentious, and was marked by serious allegations of ministerial gerrymandering. The introduction in 1979 of constituency commissions made up of officials neutralised, for the most part, charges that the system had become too politicised, but it continued the process of micro-management of constituency boundaries. This article suggests that the continuing problems caused by this system – notably, the permanently changing nature of constituency boundaries and resulting difficulties of geographical identification – could be resolved by reversion to the procedure that is normal in proportional representation systems: periodic post-census allocation of seats to constituencies whose boundaries are based on those of recognised local government units and which are stable over time. This reform, replacing the principle of redistricting by the principle of reapportionment, would result in more recognisable constituencies, more predictable boundary trajectories over time, and a more efficient, fairer, and speedier process of revision.