...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Planning & Environment Law >Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage),Westminster City Council and Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lambeth LBC, Greater London Authority and Coin Street Community Builders
【24h】

Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage),Westminster City Council and Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lambeth LBC, Greater London Authority and Coin Street Community Builders

机译：英格兰历史建筑和古迹委员会（英国遗产），威斯敏斯特市议会和阿什顿诉社区和地方政府大臣，兰贝斯LBC，大伦敦当局和硬币街社区建设者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

110. There is a temptation to equate the test of "standing" in judicial review, as illustrated in Kidcs and the test of being a person aggrieved. In my judgement that would be wrong. Parliament has chosen to use the word "aggrieved" as setting the threshold for being able to bring a statutory challenge to certain planning acts or orders. There are sound reasons for setting the threshold higher than on a judicial review. The right of statutory challenge comes at the end of a complex and formal series of opportunities for consultation, objection and hearing. It is understandable that Parliament should intend to limit the right of appeal to those who have played an active part in the process that is designed to ensure that the important issues are identified and properly examined as early in the process as possible, as Lord Rodger said in Lardner. I do not see that there is anything in art.10(a) or in the Aarhus Convention that suggests that such an approach and the interpretation that the courts have given to the word "aggrieved" needs to be modified.
机译：110.有一种诱惑将司法审查中的“资格”标准等同于基德奇和被屈辱者标准。以我的判断，那是错误的。议会已选择使用“委屈”一词来设置阈值，以便能够对某些计划行为或命令提出法定质疑。有充分的理由将阈值设置为高于司法审查。法定质疑权来自一系列复杂而正式的磋商，异议和听证机会。可以理解的是，议会应该打算将上诉权限制在那些积极参与过程的人身上，这些人旨在确保在过程中尽早发现并适当审查重要问题，如罗杰勋爵所说。在拉德纳。我认为第10条（a）或《奥尔胡斯公约》中没有任何内容表明需要修改这种方法和法院对“受害”一词的解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号