Legal Definitions - prorogation

Prorogation refers to the formal act of discontinuing a session, most commonly in a legislative body, or, in civil law systems, the extension of a court's authority over a case through the explicit or implicit agreement of the parties involved.

• 1. In a Legislative Context: Prorogation is the formal act of ending a legislative session without dissolving the legislative body itself. It suspends the work of the legislature until a new session begins, typically with a new agenda. All unfinished business from the previous session usually lapses unless specific rules allow it to be carried over.

  • Example: A country's Parliament has been in session for several months, debating numerous bills, including a controversial tax reform and a new immigration policy. The Prime Minister advises the Head of State to prorogue Parliament for a period of six weeks before the next annual budget session is scheduled to begin.

    Explanation: This act of prorogation formally brings the current legislative session to an end. All ongoing debates and unpassed bills, such as the tax reform and immigration policy, would cease to be active. The parliamentarians would not meet for official legislative business during these six weeks, and when they reconvene, it would be for a new session with a fresh legislative program.

• 2. In a Civil Law Context (Jurisdiction by Consent): In legal systems based on civil law (common in continental Europe and many other parts of the world), prorogation can also mean that parties involved in a legal dispute agree to allow a specific court or judge to hear their case, even if that court or judge would not ordinarily have the inherent authority (jurisdiction) to do so. This consent effectively extends the court's power for that particular case.

  • Example: Two international corporations, one based in Spain and the other in Brazil, enter into a complex commercial contract. A dispute arises, and while neither country's courts might have automatic jurisdiction over both parties under standard international law, they both agree in their contract that any disputes will be exclusively heard by a specific commercial court in Madrid.

    Explanation: By explicitly agreeing in their contract that the Madrid court will handle any disputes, the Spanish and Brazilian companies are exercising prorogation. They are consenting to extend the jurisdiction of that particular court to cover their case, even if it might not have had inherent jurisdiction over both parties otherwise.

  • Example (Tacit Prorogation): During a civil lawsuit in a European country, one of the parties discovers that the presiding judge has a minor, non-disqualifying conflict of interest. Although the party could request the judge to step aside, they choose not to raise an objection, believing the judge will remain impartial, and allow the trial to proceed.

    Explanation: This scenario illustrates "tacit prorogation." By not objecting to the judge's potential conflict of interest, despite being aware of it, the party is implicitly consenting to the judge's jurisdiction and ability to hear the case. They are effectively agreeing to extend the judge's authority over the matter through their silence.