Article 26 of The Constitution & In the Matter of the Health, Re [2005] IESC 7 (16 February 2005)

Article 26 of The Constitution & In the Matter of the Health, Re [2005] IESC 7 (16 February 2005)

The Court held that the prospective provisions of the Bill, including the imposition of capped charges for in-patient maintenance and the discretionary waiver for hardship, are not repugnant to the Constitution. The Oireachtas provided sufficient principles and policies to guide the Minister and Chief Executive Officers, and the charges do not unduly infringe constitutional rights. However, the retrospective provisions, specifically section 1(b) inserting subsections (5), (6), (7), and subsection (11) (insofar as it defines 'relevant charge') into section 53 of the Health Act 1970, are repugnant to the Constitution, particularly Articles 43 and 40.3.2, as they unjustly extinguish vested...

Citation
[2005] IESC 7
Parties
Referrer: President of Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General; Amicus Curiae: Counsel assigned by the Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality of Bill Prior to Enactment
Outcome
The Court found certain provisions of the Bill unconstitutional and others constitutional.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Legislation, Delegated Legislation, Separation of Powers, Restitution of Unlawful Charges, Right to Bodily Integrity, Right to Life, Social Welfare
Constitutional Law Health Law Administrative Law Retrospective Legislation Delegated Legislation Separation of Powers Restitution of Unlawful Charges Right to Bodily Integrity +2 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President of Ireland

Referrer

Attorney General

Respondent

Counsel assigned by the Court

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Article 26 Reference (constitutional Review) / Supreme Court Decision on Constitutionality of Bill Prior to Enactment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prospective and retrospective provisions of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004 are repugnant to the Constitution, particularly Articles 40.3 and 43
  2. 2 Whether the Bill impermissibly delegates legislative power to the Minister or Health Board officials
  3. 3 Whether the Bill unlawfully extinguishes vested property rights or rights to restitution for unlawful charges

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the prospective provisions of the Bill, including the imposition of capped charges for in-patient maintenance and the discretionary waiver for hardship, are not repugnant to the Constitution. The Oireachtas provided sufficient principles and policies to guide the Minister and Chief Executive Officers, and the charges do not unduly infringe constitutional rights. However, the retrospective provisions, specifically section 1(b) inserting subsections (5), (6), (7), and subsection (11) (insofar as it defines 'relevant charge') into section 53 of the Health Act 1970, are repugnant to the Constitution, particularly Articles 43 and 40.3.2, as they unjustly extinguish vested...

Court Disposition

The Court found certain provisions of the Bill unconstitutional and others constitutional.

Orders

  • Section 1(b) of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004, providing for the insertion of subsections (5), (6), (7), and subsection (11) (insofar as it defines 'relevant charge') in section 53 of the Health Act 1970, are repugnant to the Constitution and in particular Articles 43 and 40.3.2 thereof.
  • The remaining provisions of the Bill are not repugnant to the Constitution.