Under what condition does the presumption of reasonableness get rebutted according to Vavilov?

The presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted when the rule of law mandates a correctness standard. This arises in situations where a decision is significantly tied to rights and interests protected under law, or when a specific legal test or requirement has been established that must be met. In such cases, the courts will scrutinize decisions not solely for their rationality or reasonableness but will instead evaluate whether the decision correctly applies the law as intended. This aligns with the principles established in the Vavilov case, which emphasized that certain contexts necessitate a higher level of scrutiny.

The other conditions mentioned do not effectively rebut the presumption of reasonableness as they may pertain to circumstances where the level of deference remains intact. For example, decisions involving funding allocations or personal opinions might still fall under the category of decisions that warrant a reasonable standard of review unless they directly involve a point of law that requires precise adherence to established legal principles. Similarly, while an administrative body's expertise is relevant in evaluating the reasonableness of its decisions, lacking expertise alone does not automatically shift the standard to correctness; it may still be subject to reasonable assessment based on the context of the decision-making process.