• IMMIGRATION LAWS

Supreme Court of United kingdom

R  Vs.  Secretary of State for the Home Department and others (Decided on 12.10.2011)

Ban on entry for settlement of foreign spouses - Validity of - Present Appeals filed against one of the rules currently in force by which the Appellant determines an application for a visa to enter or remain in the United Kingdom made by the spouse of a person who is present and settled in the U.K ('marriage visa') - Whether there had been an interference by a public authority with the exercise of a person's right to respect for his private or personal life and if so whether it had consequences of sufficient gravity to engage the operation of article 30

Held, refusal to grant marriage visas to Respondents was an infringement of their rights under Article 8 of ECHR. The ECHR has however held in Abdulaziz v. United Kingdom that there was no lack of respect for family life in denying entry to foreign spouses. There was no positive obligation on the State to respect a couple's choice of country of matrimonial residence. The ECHR has since recognized that the distinction between positive and negative obligations should not generate outcomes. Petition dismissed

• COMMERCIAL LAWS

United States Courts of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

Montana Consumer Counsel Vs. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Market based regulatory policy - Permissibility of - Present petition filed to review the final order of Respondent on the ground that it violates the governing statutes

Held, parties to this dispute raise policy issues of exceptional importance. The questions considered impact real world energy markets, industries and consumers. Plainly the well being of consumers and not regulatory criteria should be the touchstone. Role of the present Court was limited by statute and holdings of Supreme Court. The question before this Court was not whether this Court thought that market rates were a good idea instead it was whether the market bases rates policy embodies in Order 697 exceeded Respondent's authority. Taking into consideration the law of the circuit, other relevant precedent and the direction of the Supreme Court as to how this Court should approach such administrative law issues concerning federal agencies, it is concluded that the final order i.e Order 697 does not violate the governing statutes. Petition dismissed.