Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 224: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the steps he has taken to ensure that his Department complies with the decisions of the High Court of 6 March 2002 and of the Supreme Court of 16 July 2003 that any ministerial order having the effect of creating an indictable offence is [i]ultra vires[/i]; if this decision has been upheld by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23129/05]

Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question refers to the High Court decision of 6 March 2002 and Supreme Court decision of 16 July 2003, and while the name of the case was not included in the question it would appear that the Deputy is referring to the decision in the case of Vincent Browne v. the Attorney General. The Supreme Court in this case decided that an EC regulation could only be transposed by regulations under a provision of an Act of the Oireachtas, which specifically allows for the transposition of an EC regulation.

The parameters of the decision in the Browne case were considered by the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of Thomas Kennedy v. the Attorney General, the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. The Supreme Court in its decision in that case of 31 May 2005 clarified the limits of its earlier decision in the Browne case and decided that EU policy can only be implemented by regulations made under an Act of the Oireachtas where the Act specifically allows for the implementation of EU policy by regulations. The Attorney General will shortly advise the Government on action to be taken to address the issues raised in these cases.