Suchergebnisse

Proportionality refers to an appropriate relationship between two comparators and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. This can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, and qualitative disproportion, on the other. The former reflects an economic imbalance between the comparators, while the latter indicates an unsatisfactory quality of the relationship between the comparators. It must be stated that, under Mauritius law, the principle of proportionality applies to the contract. However, the proportionality thus defined only covers situations where the comparators are clearly pre-established, thus avoiding bad surprises for the parties. This article examines two types of disproportion mentioned above, as well as penalties which serve as a technical tool to combat the disproportion of the contract. ; International audience Proportionality designates an adequate relationship between two elements of comparison and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. Disproportion can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, and qualitative disproportion, on the other. The first one shows an economic imbalance between the elements of comparison, while the second one reveals an unsatisfactory quality of the relationship between the elements of comparison. It is clear that under Mauritian law the principle of proportionality applies to the contract. However, the proportionality thus defined includes only situations where the elements of comparison are pre-established with certainty. In this article, two types of disproportion mentioned above are analyzed, as well as sanctions which are the technical tool to combat the disproportion of contract. ; Proportionality refers to an appropriate relationship between two comparators and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. This can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, ...

The principle of proportionality covers a broad field of application, arising from the protection of fundamental rights, of which intellectual property is undeniably a part. Its implementation, through several types of proportionality controls, has upset doctrinal certainties and triggered a reflection on the motivation and legal interpretation. The most discussed of these proportionality checks is the one used in cases of fundamental conflict.Its impact at the judicial level has been made in several stages. It originates from the jurisprudence of the two European courts, itself inspired by the German principle of proportionality. The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have developed their own proportionality checks to resolve a conflict between fundamental rights. While the former takes a more concrete approach than the latter, due to the nature of its task, both courts confirm the non-absolute nature of intellectual property rights and the need to reconcile them with other fundamental rights (recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). In their proportionality test, the two courts reserve a certain margin of appreciation to the Member States, but give indications as to how to carry it out in their turn. Beyond the development of a three-step test (adequacy, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu), the European courts reveal elements to be taken into account according to the fundamental right opposed to the intellectual property right and the facts of the case (type of speech at stake for the freedom of expression invoked for a use of an intellectual property outside the legal exceptions; duration, complexity, cost, necessity for the freedom of enterprise or the right to privacy invoked for a blocking measure on the Internet.). France launched this process of adopting proportionality review in a fundamental dispute at the judicial level on May 15, 2015 by a ruling of the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The latter now requires trial judges to explain in a concrete manner how the search for a fair balance between intellectual property rights and another opposing fundamental right commands the sentence handed down. The first judgments and rulings on the merits have applied this jurisprudence of the Cour de cassation, in particular in the case of a conflict between freedom of expression through the notion of necessity of use. Their motivation should certainly be developed in the coming years.At the same time, one should not neglect the control of the proportionality of the sanction, which also derives from the principle of proportionality and which has decisive applications for the control during a fundamental conflict. A disproportionate sanction could directly threaten the application and coherence of fundamental rights, and this risk makes the conjunction of the two controls indispensable. If the legislator, both national and European, has adopted various measures inspired by the desire to achieve a proportionate sanction, the judge remains essential in the application of the principle of proportionality, since he chooses the sanction best adapted to the facts. The issue is central to intellectual property law in that it offers a wide variety of sanctions, both criminal and civil, to combat counterfeiting. However, its application remains timid, as much as its interest for the doctrine. This application is bound to develop further through case law. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ; Le principe de proportionnalité recouvre un champ d'application large, découlant de la protection des droits fondamentaux, dont la propriété intellectuelle fait indéniablement partie. Sa mise en œuvre, par plusieurs types de contrôles de proportionnalité, a bouleversé les certitudes doctrinales et enclenché une réflexion relative à la motivation et l'interprétation juridique. Le plus discuté desdits contrôles de proportionnalité est celui utilisé en cas de conflit fondamental. Son impact au niveau judiciaire s'est fait en plusieurs étapes. Il a pour origine la jurisprudence des deux cours européennes, elle-même inspirée du principe de proportionnalité allemand. La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme et la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne ont développé leurs propres contrôles de proportionnalité pour résoudre un conflit entre droits fondamentaux. Si la première entreprend une démarche plus concrète que la seconde, liée à la nature de sa mission, ces deux juridictions confirment toutes deux le caractère non absolu du droit de la propriété intellectuelle et la nécessité de le concilier avec les autres droits fondamentaux (reconnus par la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne). Lors de leur contrôle de proportionnalité, les deux cours réservent une certaine marge d'appréciation aux États membres mais donnent des indications afin de le réaliser à leur tour. Au-delà du développement d'un test en trois étapes (adéquation, nécessité et proportionnalité stricto sensu), les cours européennes révèlent des éléments à prendre en compte selon le droit fondamental opposé au droit de la propriété intellectuelle et les faits de l'espèce (type de discours en cause pour la liberté d'expression invoqué pour une utilisation d'un bien intellectuel hors des exceptions légales ; durée, complexité, coût, nécessité pour la liberté d'entreprise ou le droit à la vie privée invoquée pour une mesure de blocage sur internet…). La France a lancé ce processus d'adoption du contrôle de proportionnalité lors d'un conflit fondamental au niveau judiciaire le 15 mai 2015 par un arrêt de la première chambre civile de la Cour de cassation. Celle-ci impose désormais aux juges du fond d'expliquer de façon concrète en quoi la recherche d'un juste équilibre entre le droit de la propriété intellectuelle et un autre droit fondamental opposé commande la condamnation prononcée. Les premiers jugements et arrêts au fond ont appliqué cette jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation, notamment en cas de conflit de la liberté d'expression à travers la notion de nécessité d'usage. Leur motivation devrait assurément s'étoffer dans les prochaines années. En parallèle, il ne faut pas négliger le contrôle de proportionnalité de la sanction, qui découle également du principe de proportionnalité et qui a des applications déterminantes pour le contrôle lors d'un conflit fondamental. Une sanction disproportionnée pourrait menacer directement l'application et la cohérence des droits fondamentaux et ce risque rend indispensable la conjonction des deux contrôles. Si le législateur, tant national et européen, a adopté différentes mesures inspirées par la volonté de parvenir à une sanction proportionnée, le juge demeure essentiel dans l'application du principe de proportionnalité, puisqu'il choisit la sanction la mieux adaptée aux faits. L'enjeu est central pour le droit de la propriété intellectuelle en ce qu'il offre une grande variété de sanctions, tant pénales que civiles, afin de lutter contre la contrefaçon. Cependant, son application reste timide, autant que son intérêt pour la doctrine. Cette application est appelée à se développer davantage à travers la jurisprudence.

The principle of proportionality covers a broad field of application, arising from the protection of fundamental rights, of which intellectual property is undeniably a part. Its implementation, through several types of proportionality controls, has upset doctrinal certainties and triggered a reflection on the motivation and legal interpretation. The most discussed of these proportionality checks is the one used in cases of fundamental conflict.Its impact at the judicial level has been made in several stages. It originates from the jurisprudence of the two European courts, itself inspired by the German principle of proportionality. The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have developed their own proportionality checks to resolve a conflict between fundamental rights. While the former takes a more concrete approach than the latter, due to the nature of its task, both courts confirm the non-absolute nature of intellectual property rights and the need to reconcile them with other fundamental rights (recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). In their proportionality test, the two courts reserve a certain margin of appreciation to the Member States, but give indications as to how to carry it out in their turn. Beyond the development of a three-step test (adequacy, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu), the European courts reveal elements to be taken into account according to the fundamental right opposed to the intellectual property right and the facts of the case (type of speech at stake for the freedom of expression invoked for a use of an intellectual property outside the legal exceptions; duration, complexity, cost, necessity for the freedom of enterprise or the right to privacy invoked for a blocking measure on the Internet.). France launched this process of adopting proportionality review in a fundamental dispute at the judicial level on May 15, 2015 by a ruling of the First Civil Chamber of ...

The proportionality principe, as it arose in the late 19th century, states that limitations of fundamental rights are lawful only if they are proportionate to a legitimate aim. As criminal law may be considered to consist in a wide set of such limitations, the proportionality principle should apply in this field. To that regard, the French judiciary recently adhered to the model of proportionality review. However, the proportionality principle relies on a particular, non-categorical way of reasoning. It is also distinct from the principle according to which punishments should be proportionate to crimes. Proportionality review thus requires special caution from judges, in order to prevent their decision-making process from losing its neutrality or contradicting itself. Moreover, parts of the review's premises are incommensurable, which means its rationalist promises will need to be watered down. ; Le contrôle de proportionnalité est une technique originale de contrôle juridictionnel qui a connu un succès croissant depuis la fin du XIXe siècle. Il soumet à une nouvelle condition la licéité de toute atteinte aux libertés fondamentales adoptée par une autorité matériellement compétente. Pour être admissible, cette atteinte doit être justifiée et proportionnée à cette justification. La répression pénale pouvant se concevoir comme un ensemble complexe d'atteintes légitimes aux libertés adoptées en vue de la lutte contre la criminalité, le contrôle de proportionnalité semble avoir vocation à s'appliquer en matière pénale. Les juges européens et le juge constitutionnel exercent déjà ce contrôle depuis plusieurs décennies. Toutefois ce n'est que récemment que le juge judiciaire s'est expressément engagé dans cette voie. Aussi il importe de présenter les enjeux que représente un tel contrôle dans le domaine du droit criminel. Le contrôle de proportionnalité fondé sur la protection des libertés repose sur un raisonnement d'un type particulier qui s'éloigne du syllogisme juridique. Sa logique interne le distingue également ...

The proportionality principe, as it arose in the late 19th century, states that limitations of fundamental rights are lawful only if they are proportionate to a legitimate aim. As criminal law may be considered to consist in a wide set of such limitations, the proportionality principle should apply in this field. To that regard, the French judiciary recently adhered to the model of proportionality review. However, the proportionality principle relies on a particular, non-categorical way of reasoning. It is also distinct from the principle according to which punishments should be proportionate to crimes. Proportionality review thus requires special caution from judges, in order to prevent their decision-making process from losing its neutrality or contradicting itself. Moreover, parts of the review's premises are incommensurable, which means its rationalist promises will need to be watered down. ; Le contrôle de proportionnalité est une technique originale de contrôle juridictionnel qui a connu un succès croissant depuis la fin du XIXe siècle. Il soumet à une nouvelle condition la licéité de toute atteinte aux libertés fondamentales adoptée par une autorité matériellement compétente. Pour être admissible, cette atteinte doit être justifiée et proportionnée à cette justification. La répression pénale pouvant se concevoir comme un ensemble complexe d'atteintes légitimes aux libertés adoptées en vue de la lutte contre la criminalité, le contrôle de proportionnalité semble avoir vocation à s'appliquer en matière pénale. Les juges européens et le juge constitutionnel exercent déjà ce contrôle depuis plusieurs décennies. Toutefois ce n'est que récemment que le juge judiciaire s'est expressément engagé dans cette voie. Aussi il importe de présenter les enjeux que représente un tel contrôle dans le domaine du droit criminel. Le contrôle de proportionnalité fondé sur la protection des libertés repose sur un raisonnement d'un type particulier qui s'éloigne du syllogisme juridique. Sa logique interne le distingue également ...

The dissertation explores the principle of proportionality as an instrument deriving from the notion of "democratic society" and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to establish whether national institutions succeeded in striking a fair balance between the conflicting Convention rights or between competing individual and public interests. In the first chapter, after presenting the origins of the principle, the development of a three-tiered proportionality test and its dissemination, the main parameters relevant for the analysis of this principle are identified and the main issues of academic discussion concerning the application of proportionality by the ECtHR are revealed. The second chapter explores the evolution of the application of the proportionality principle in the case law of ECtHR and reveals the main features of proportionality test as applied in the early practice of Convention institutions. The third chapter deals with the interaction of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in particular examining the impact of margin of appreciation doctrine upon the proportionality assessment conducted by the ECtHR and analysing the contents and interplay of the factors determining the width of the margin of appreciation. The forth chapter explores both commonalities and peculiarities of the application of proportionality principle in the context of different Convention rights and exposes the main criteria relevant to the balancing exercise performed by the Court. The final chapter assesses the balancing-based model of proportionality test as applied by the ECtHR, identifying the most prospective trends of its application.

The dissertation explores the principle of proportionality as an instrument deriving from the notion of "democratic society" and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to establish whether national institutions succeeded in striking a fair balance between the conflicting Convention rights or between competing individual and public interests. In the first chapter, after presenting the origins of the principle, the development of a three-tiered proportionality test and its dissemination, the main parameters relevant for the analysis of this principle are identified and the main issues of academic discussion concerning the application of proportionality by the ECtHR are revealed. The second chapter explores the evolution of the application of the proportionality principle in the case law of ECtHR and reveals the main features of proportionality test as applied in the early practice of Convention institutions. The third chapter deals with the interaction of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in particular examining the impact of margin of appreciation doctrine upon the proportionality assessment conducted by the ECtHR and analysing the contents and interplay of the factors determining the width of the margin of appreciation. The forth chapter explores both commonalities and peculiarities of the application of proportionality principle in the context of different Convention rights and exposes the main criteria relevant to the balancing exercise performed by the Court. The final chapter assesses the balancing-based model of proportionality test as applied by the ECtHR, identifying the most prospective trends of its application.

The dissertation explores the principle of proportionality as an instrument deriving from the notion of "democratic society" and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to establish whether national institutions succeeded in striking a fair balance between the conflicting Convention rights or between competing individual and public interests. In the first chapter, after presenting the origins of the principle, the development of a three-tiered proportionality test and its dissemination, the main parameters relevant for the analysis of this principle are identified and the main issues of academic discussion concerning the application of proportionality by the ECtHR are revealed. The second chapter explores the evolution of the application of the proportionality principle in the case law of ECtHR and reveals the main features of proportionality test as applied in the early practice of Convention institutions. The third chapter deals with the interaction of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in particular examining the impact of margin of appreciation doctrine upon the proportionality assessment conducted by the ECtHR and analysing the contents and interplay of the factors determining the width of the margin of appreciation. The forth chapter explores both commonalities and peculiarities of the application of proportionality principle in the context of different Convention rights and exposes the main criteria relevant to the balancing exercise performed by the Court. The final chapter assesses the balancing-based model of proportionality test as applied by the ECtHR, identifying the most prospective trends of its application.

The dissertation explores the principle of proportionality as an instrument deriving from the notion of "democratic society" and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to establish whether national institutions succeeded in striking a fair balance between the conflicting Convention rights or between competing individual and public interests. In the first chapter, after presenting the origins of the principle, the development of a three-tiered proportionality test and its dissemination, the main parameters relevant for the analysis of this principle are identified and the main issues of academic discussion concerning the application of proportionality by the ECtHR are revealed. The second chapter explores the evolution of the application of the proportionality principle in the case law of ECtHR and reveals the main features of proportionality test as applied in the early practice of Convention institutions. The third chapter deals with the interaction of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in particular examining the impact of margin of appreciation doctrine upon the proportionality assessment conducted by the ECtHR and analysing the contents and interplay of the factors determining the width of the margin of appreciation. The forth chapter explores both commonalities and peculiarities of the application of proportionality principle in the context of different Convention rights and exposes the main criteria relevant to the balancing exercise performed by the Court. The final chapter assesses the balancing-based model of proportionality test as applied by the ECtHR, identifying the most prospective trends of its application.

It is often said that proportionality is a method of ad hoc judicial reasoning. Close attention to practice however, exposes this vision as too simplistic. The content of proportionality is very different across jurisdictions, even in the application of the same legal text, and the role of concrete cases in judicial reasoning varies considerably. The purpose of this article is to illustrate this through a study of the reasoning of the French Council of State and of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the Convention. The study of French and European proportionality case law reveals that different versions of proportionality involve different kinds of case-based reasoning, in which the case has a more or less normative function. The article suggests that this is connected to the local meanings of proportionality and of human rights in French law and in the Convention.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PRINCIPE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY The topic of this thesis is: the interpretation of the principle of proportionality pursuant to the practice of the European Court of Justice. It discusses the very beginning of this principle and its establishment in the law of the European Union: from the 1951 Treaty of Paris to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The European Court of Justice explains the principle of proportionality as a concept of justice. The Court uses this principle's criteria, which are sometimes also called a test of proportionality, in its practice. These criteria demand that suitable measures, necessary in settling the disputes that arise in the European Union, are used in the pursuance of lawful aims. The use of the principle of proportionality occupies a special place in evaluating the behaviour of the member states when they operate at the limits of Community law and when national measures, which the Consolidated Treaty of the European Union grants and allows them to use, are debated. The use of these national measures restricts the exercise of the freedoms of contract, i.e. the free movement of services, goods, people, and capital. By interpreting and following the principle of proportionality in the practice of the European Court of Justice, the granted freedoms are guaranteed and the behaviour of the states evaluated in pursuing the set aims of the European Union. The aim of this thesis is, on the basis of the practice of the European Court of Justice, to reveal the content of the principle of proportionality and the specifics of its use as well as to discuss each specific freedom granted by the European Union in its proper context.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PRINCIPE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE SUMMARY The topic of this thesis is: the interpretation of the principle of proportionality pursuant to the practice of the European Court of Justice. It discusses the very beginning of this principle and its establishment in the law of the European Union: from the 1951 Treaty of Paris to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The European Court of Justice explains the principle of proportionality as a concept of justice. The Court uses this principle's criteria, which are sometimes also called a test of proportionality, in its practice. These criteria demand that suitable measures, necessary in settling the disputes that arise in the European Union, are used in the pursuance of lawful aims. The use of the principle of proportionality occupies a special place in evaluating the behaviour of the member states when they operate at the limits of Community law and when national measures, which the Consolidated Treaty of the European Union grants and allows them to use, are debated. The use of these national measures restricts the exercise of the freedoms of contract, i.e. the free movement of services, goods, people, and capital. By interpreting and following the principle of proportionality in the practice of the European Court of Justice, the granted freedoms are guaranteed and the behaviour of the states evaluated in pursuing the set aims of the European Union. The aim of this thesis is, on the basis of the practice of the European Court of Justice, to reveal the content of the principle of proportionality and the specifics of its use as well as to discuss each specific freedom granted by the European Union in its proper context.

Despite its apparent innocuousness, the principle of proportionality actually brings about a profound transformation of the law. The importance of this development, as well as the spread of this principle throughout the world, accounts for the considerable interest that this issue has raised in recent scholarship. However, it is uncommon to analyze this principle within a specific context, as a manifestation of a particular culture. This thesis embarks on such an analysis within the context of the European Union, which would seem paradigmatic, by examining the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in its judgments applying the freedoms of circulation. This examination will make it possible, on the one hand, to take cognizance of the potential for transformation of the principle of proportionality at a formal, substantial and institutional level. lndeed, this principle having been conceived by the Court as an evaluation of efficiency of State measures, the implications are significant with regards to the form of reasoning employed by the Court, the function of the freedoms of circulation and finally the distribution of competence between the Union and the Member States. On the other hand, the principle of proportionality becomes a particularly appropriate mirror for reflecting the specific characteristics of the legal culture of the European Union, within which a technocratic discourse appears prevalent. ; D'apparence banale, le principe de proportionnalité signifie en réalité un bouleversement profond du droit. L'importance de ce développement, ainsi que le retentissement de ce principe partout dans le monde, explique l'intérêt considérable que suscite cette question dans la littérature récente. Cependant, il n'est pas commun d'analyser ce principe dans un contexte particulier, en tant que manifestation d'une culture spécifique. Cette thèse entreprend une telle analyse dans le contexte de l'Union européenne, qui s'avère à maints égards paradigmatique, à partir d'un examen du raisonnement de la Cour de ...