Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|ECLI = |
|ECLI = |
||
|transcripts = |
|transcripts = |
||
|judges = [[ |
|judges = [[Tribal Council]] |
||
|number of judges = 37 |
|number of judges = 37 |
||
|decision by = |
|decision by = |
||
Revision as of 21:33, 18 September 2023
| MoC v. MoE | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Tribal Council |
| Full case name | Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment |
| Decided | 15th September, 2023 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Tribal Council |
Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment, 1 (2023), (often abbreviated as MoC v. MoE, or CvE, in text and as Culture v. Environment in speech) was the first ever Kuduk Tribal Council Court case, and currently the only case in which both sides of the case are Ministries of the Assembly. The dispute in CvE revolves around opposing laws passed independently by the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment surrounding the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the Rotantic Tribes of Kuduk. In its ruling, the Tribal Council established cuts on the power of the Ministry of the Environment by limiting its activity toward species that are endangered or threatened. Since the rotantic cetaceans of Kuduk fall under neither category, the Tribal Council ruled in favor of the Ministry of Culture, citing that the Ministry of the Environment's law restricting the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the Rotantic Tribes was an overreach of jurisdiction.
MoC v MoE has been described as an important first case in "determining the future jurisdictions and powers of the Ministries."[1] The case established an important limit on the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment, namely that it cannot pass laws that limit cultural expression if the law in question steps outside the ministry's sui juris.