Rotherham Borough Council & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation And Skills
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this Court of Appeal judgment, the four South Yorkshire local authorities associated with the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership and five Merseyside local authorities associated with the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership appealed decisions by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on EU Structural Funds allocations for 20142020. The first decision redistributed the United Kingdoms funds to limit sharp cuts for the devolved administrations, and the second set English allocations using a 2013 baseline with a uniform uplift for Transition regions. The appellants alleged breaches of EU equal treatment and proportionality, and a domestic failure to consider mandatory economic needs. Applying a wide margin of discretion to complex social and economic policy choices, the court held the 2013 baseline and equal treatment approach lawful, rejected the domestic public law ground, and dismissed the appeal, while noting Stewart J had previously found a breach of the public sector equality duty.
Judgment
Master of the Rolls : this is the judgment of the court to which each member has contributed.
The claimants are the four local authorities in the South Yorkshire area largely comprising the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership and the five local authorities in the Merseyside area largely comprising the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership. The two Local Enterprise Partnerships comprise the two “NUTS 2” regions of Merseyside and South Yorkshire: NUTS 2 regions are the primary units of measurement for allocating EU Structural Funds. They brought a claim in the Administrative Court challenging two decisions of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (“the Secretary of State”) as to how to allocate the Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020 within the UK. In summary, they allege that the decisions have produced discriminatory and disproportionate funding cuts for their regions.
Stewart J, in a careful and impressive judgment handed down on 7 February 2014, held that in making the decisions the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, but otherwise dismissed the grounds of challenge. The claimants sought permission to appeal, and on 28 February 2014 Sir Stanley Burnton adjourned their application and directed that the appeal should be heard immediately if permission to appeal was granted. We give permission to appeal.
The background
In order to put the decisions under challenge into their proper context it is necessary to set out at least some of the EU legislative background against which the decisions were taken. Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) enjoins the Union, as a general objective, to develop and pursue actions leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular it requires the Union to aim at “reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions”. Particular attention is to be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions which suffer from natural and demographic handicaps. Article 175 TFEU requires the Union to support the achievement of these objectives by, amongst other means, the action it takes through the European Structural Funds, which include the European Social Fund (“ESF”) and the European Regional Development Fund (