Brannigan và McBride, sau đó Brogan, khẳng định xu hướng rằng các quốc gia dân chủ để việc sử dụng quyền lực khẩn cấp trong hệ thống châu Âu experenced "một chuyến đi dễ dàng hơn" so với các đối tác của họ mới hơn hoặc ít hơn có vẻ như tự do. | model application accommodation 281 and willingness to enquire fully into the reasons for the government s legal response and thus probe the primary question of emergency justification. Brannigan and McBride which followed Brogan confirmed the trend that democratic states resorting to the use of emergency powers in the European system experenced an easier ride than their newer or less ostensibly liberal counterparts. It also verified the unwillingness of the court to look behind the stated rationale for formal accommodation by states whether in legislative or executive form. A critical analysis of the case reveals that the court failed to examine the possibility that the United Kingdom s derogation was simply a response to an adverse court The facts of Brannigan and McBride were substantially similar to those of Brogan. This time however the British government conceded that article 5 3 s promptness requirement had not been met. However the government invoked as a defense the derogation notice it had submitted in December 1988 claiming that the article 5 3 violation was justified under article 15. The issue then was whether the derogation was a valid one under article 15 namely the very question that the court did not have to deal with in The applicants in this case contended specifically that the derogation entered by the state was merely a mechanical response to the finding in Brogan. Amicus briefs stressed to the court that there existed empirical evidence to dispute the claim that a truly exceptional situation existed justifying a continued state of Yet both the court and the commission maintained that while the judgment in Brogan triggered off 115 the derogation there was no reason to conclude that the derogation of 1988 was anything other than a genuine response to a persistent emergency The unwillingness of the court to examine whether the state was actually experiencing such a level of violence and threat .
