That's very interesting, because this is a binding decision, not a reference or an opinion of the Supreme Court. In fact, the appeal to the Supreme Court was initiated by one woman, whom even the Attorney General of Scotland supported.
The U.K. Minister of Justice immediately recognized the authority of the decision, and concrete steps were taken in the U.K. to overturn the decision.
Since you are letting me talk about this ruling, I will read the remainder of paragraph 55. I will do so in English, since that is the original language.
It says, “(unlike the position in some other democracies)”.
The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons—and indeed to the House of Lords—for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.
It is very difficult to think that this role was not frustrated in the case of the August 18 prorogation.