The documentary film “Testimony” chronicles the fight for justice by the survivors of the Irish Magdalene Laundries and Mother and Baby Homes. Raymond Hill provided the campaign with pro bono legal advice (see news here), which resulted in the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) issuing a formal State apology in 2013 in respect of its involvement in the Magdalene Laundries (see news here) and a further apology in 2021 in respect of the Mother and Baby Homes.

Raymond and his wife, Jo, attended the premiere at the Dublin International Film Festival on 28^th February, where the film was awarded the 2025 Irish Council for Civil Liberties Human Rights Film Award.

Further information on the film can be found here.

“Anneli Howard KC, competition and consumer barrister from Monckton Chambers, says lack of transparency, excessive prices or unfair selling conditions could result in legal action or regulatory investigations for “abuse of dominance” for such companies.

“There’s a heightened focus on breaches of consumer law or excessive pricing which we are increasingly seeing at the centre of damages actions in the English Courts – under competition law for abuse of dominance or under consumer law provisions,” she says.“

To read the article written by Chi Chi Izundu and James Stewart, please click here.

To read the article written by Josie Clarke, please click here.

Professor Panos Koutrakos is mentioned in the Opinion by Advocate General Emiliou of the European Court of Justice in Case C-516/22 European Commission v UK

This case is an enforcement action against the UK, and its subject matter is the Supreme Court judgment Micula and others v Romania ([2020] UKSC 5). The judgment was handed down during the implementation period when EU law was applicable under Article 127(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement,

In its 2020 judgment, the Supreme Court authorised the enforcement of a 2013 arbitral award against Romania for a violation of the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). In its action before the Court of Justice, the Commission argues that the UK Supreme Court violated a number of EU law obligations: even though it is a court of last resort, it failed to refer to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU; it misinterpreted Article 351 TFEU which is about international agreements concluded by Member States prior to their EU accession; it violated the duty of cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU by deciding matters pending before the Court of Justice; and it violated Article 108(3) TFEU on state aids.

In his Opinion, delivered on 9 November 2023, Advocate General Emiliou suggested that the Court of Justice declare that the UK Supreme Court had violated, on the one hand, its duty to refer under Article 267 TFEU and, on the other hand, its duty of cooperation by refusing to stay the domestic proceedings until the Court of Justice adjudicated on the matter. In his Analysis, he  referred to a chapter written by Professor Koutrakos entitled ‘‘International agreements concluded by Member States prior to their EU accession – Burgoa’ (included G. Butler and R. Wessel (eds)  EU External Relations Law – The Cases in Context, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2022, pp. 133-143).

Professor Koutrakos has written widely on the issues that arise in this case. On international agreements concluded by Member States and EU law, he has written, amongst others, the authoritative EU International Relations Law 2nd edition. On BITs and EU Law, he has written, amongst others, ‘The Autonomy of EU Law and International Investment Arbitration’, (2019) Nordic Journal of International Law, pp. 41–64.

To red full article please click here.

To read the article written by Gill Plimmer, please click here.

The comments made in this case note are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.

George Peretz QC was quoted extensively in this article in which Lawyers reject Liz Truss’s claim that UK is able to dump parts of the treaty with EU without its agreement..
Comments include:

“I can’t see how any lawyer could possibly advise the government that they’ve got a slam-dunk case. What I’ve seen so far doesn’t give them sustainable legal cover.”

Peretz reckoned the government would struggle to justify invoking article 16 based on economic problems, because these were known about in advance. “It was pretty obvious to both parties that putting a border down the Irish Sea was going to divert trade, so that would be a bizarre argument,”

“In international law, social unrest is not a basis for denouncing a treaty which you’ve signed,”

“If the advice is all about the conditions for exercising article 16, this is something the government might arguably be able to run. As to whether there’s an argument for simply ditching parts of the treaty on the basis that the text isn’t binding on the UK any more, that’s much more difficult. And I think there’s general agreement about that.”

To read full article and these comments in context, please click here.