Article 26 and the Planning and Development Bill 1999, Re [2000] IESC 20; [2000] 2 IR 321; [2001] 1 ILRM 81 (28th August, 2000)

Article 26 and the Planning and Development Bill 1999, Re [2000] IESC 20; [2000] 2 IR 321; [2001] 1 ILRM 81 (28th August, 2000)

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution. The provisions pursue legitimate objectives in the common good, the compensation scheme is rational and proportionate, the distinctions drawn are constitutionally permissible, and the legislative framework provides sufficient guidance to planning authorities. The Bill does not constitute an unjust attack on property rights, does not violate equality before the law, and does not involve impermissible delegation of legislative power.

Citation
[2000] IESC 20
Parties
Referrer: President Mary McAleese; Respondent: Attorney General; Amicus Curiae: Counsel assigned by the court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality of Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999
Outcome
Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Right to Property, Equality Before the Law, Delegation of Legislative Power, Planning and Development, Affordable Housing
Constitutional Law Property Law Administrative Law Compulsory Acquisition Right to Property Equality Before the Law Delegation of Legislative Power Planning and Development +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President Mary McAleese

Referrer

Attorney General

Respondent

Counsel assigned by the court

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality of Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is repugnant to the Constitution, specifically Articles 40.3.2 (property rights), 43 (private property), 40.1 (equality), and 15.2 (legislative power)

Ratio Decidendi

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution. The provisions pursue legitimate objectives in the common good, the compensation scheme is rational and proportionate, the distinctions drawn are constitutionally permissible, and the legislative framework provides sufficient guidance to planning authorities. The Bill does not constitute an unjust attack on property rights, does not violate equality before the law, and does not involve impermissible delegation of legislative power.

Court Disposition

Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 is not repugnant to the Constitution.

Orders

  • No provision of Part V is repugnant to the Constitution; the Bill may be signed into law.