Suchergebnisse

In the modern epoch many countries, including China and Russia, have developed market economies of differing types. This work provides an analysis of the laws of market regulation, state regulation and proportional development, as well as an analysis of the relations between them, all of which are of exceptional scientific and political significance. The law of proportionality is a universal law of social production and of the national economy. The law of market regulation (the law of value) represents an important mechanism for implementing the law of proportionality in a commodity economy, and has played a decisive role in the application of this latter law from the time when the simple commodity economy was transformed into a capitalist commodity economy. The law of state regulation (the law of planning) is the means of realisation of the law of proportionality in collectivised production and in a state-regulated national economy. In China's socialist market economy the law of state regulation (the law of planning) and the law of market regulation (the law of value) are combined into an organic whole with fruitful, mutually reinforcing functions and synergetic effects, in order to bring the law of proportional development into play and to banish the old economic problem of disproportions in economic development. Through these methods, a larger mass of production can be achieved with a smaller expenditure of resources, while obtaining maximum benefit and bringing about a high level of economic and social well-being.

Proportionality has been used as an analytical method in the constitutional jurisprudence of courts around the world, including in Australia. The method has not, however, been free from controversy. Since its first introduction into Australian constitutional law, there have been debates regarding the appropriateness of proportionality testing in this context.To date, these debates have been lacking in one important respect: they have not been sufficiently grounded in theory. In times when the global literature on the subject was relatively nascent and applications in comparative constitutional contexts sparse, the under-theorisation of Australian proportionality was understandable. This is no longer the case. The burgeoning international literature and jurisprudence in this field has in recent years generated a rich body of judicial and academic thought from which to elicit a properly theorised consideration of proportionality. Drawing on these resources, this thesis proposes a theoretical framework for proportionality. It uses this framework to explore a key question in the Australian context: when is proportionality an appropriate analytical tool in constitutional jurisprudence? In examining this question, the thesis considers the primary concerns regarding the appropriateness of proportionality in Australian constitutional law and how these might be addressed. It also makes principled suggestions for the development of Australian doctrine.

The present era has seen an unprecedented fragmentation of the public sphere, a breakup of public imperium into separate pieces, not only left in the hands of supranational or subnational authorities, but also entrusted to private actors. With the abandonment of previously undisputed notions of strict legal verticality and the undivided general interest, the separation of powers doctrine as applied in most European systems of administrative law is in need of serious rethinking. Current debates on the judicial control of governmental discretion are still hampered by a discursive language and a legal grammar that tend to draw sharp lines between law and policy, awarding each of the three branches of government its own well-defined domain. Contrary to widespread belief, the trias politica as an ideology of disjointed powers and separate spheres cannot be traced back to Montesquieu's theory of law, but only from its philosophical rebuttal and inaccurate reception in subsequent times. Ironically, a proper analysis of Montesquieu's theory may indicate a viable way forward for a system of review of government actions that attunes to its modern social and institutional context.

This text is an inquiry into how the international community is understood in and through international law. My prism for this inquiry shall be the principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law, relating expected civilian losses to anticipated military advantage. To properly understand proportionality, I have to revert to the structure of analogical thinking in the thomistic tradition. Proportionality presupposes a third element to which civilian losses and military advantage can be related. In a first reading, I develop how this tradition of thought might explain the difficulties contemporary IHL doctrine has in understanding proportionality. If military commanders misconceive the third element as the sovereignty of their own state, they will invariably apply the proportionality principle in a paternalistic manner. This would obviate the most rudimentary idea of equality among states and do away with the common of an international community. In a second reading, I shall explore whether this third element could instead be thought of as a demos, while retaining the existing framework of analogical thinking. My argument is that this secularizing replacement is possible. Practically, its consequence would be a radical change in the task of the responsible military commander determining proportionality. That commander would now need to rethink civilians endangered by an attack as a demos whose potentiality must be preserved.

Not just since the corona crisis have financial instruments in the form of guarantees, loans, and equity witnessed a growing popularity as a form of state aid vis-à-vis 'regular' grants. This thesis investigated whether the European Commission designs financial instruments and applies their legal framework in accordance with the principles of proportionality and consistency under European Union (EU) law. It found that the Commission does not adhere to the requirements of financial instruments under the case law of the EU Courts in a consistent manner. Specifically, it does not conduct the required balancing exercise of positive and negative effects of instruments, but applies maximum amounts and screening methods as well as a checklist in its compatibility assessment under the proportionality principle. Thus, the thesis recommends the introduction of so-called manifest negative effects, which are applied in other state aid areas and are apt to solve these inconsistencies: They would indicate to stakeholders which potential negative effects could disproportionally distort competition and markets and therefore be incompatible with EU law.

The principle of proportionality plays a key role in shaping the principles of the tax law system, as it is an important element in the protection of taxpayer's rights. The interpretation directive related to the principle of proportionality has a doctrinal, normative, and jurisprudential character. It is an EU and constitutional standard and should become a rule used on a daily basis in the practice of tax authorities. As a general principle of tax law, it is addressed to the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities. The article analyses the case law of the CJEU, the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Administrative Court, which leads to the following conclusions. The CJEU quite often refers to the principle of proportionality in its jurisprudence and has developed a jurisprudence doctrine based on the doctrine of law. The Constitutional Tribunal, although in a limited scope, also employs the principle of proportionality. In disputes between tax authorities and taxpayers, Polish administrative courts apply the principle of proportionality using a pro-EU and pro-constitutional interpretation. ; amudrecki@kozminski.edu.pl ; Artur Mudrecki is Associate Professor at the Kozminski University, and the Head of the Department of Financial and Tax Law, College of Law, Kozminski University in Warsaw, and a judge of the Supreme Administrative Court, Poland. ; Kozminski University in Warsaw, Poland ; Alexy R., A Theory of Constitution Rights, 2002. ; Barak A., Proportionality. Constitutional rights and their limitations, Cambridge University Press, 2012. ; Brzeziński B., Prawo podatkowe. Zagadnienia teorii i praktyki, Toruń 2017. ; Etel L., Pietrasz P., Niekompletność świadczeń o przeznaczeniu oleju opałowego a zastosowanie sankcji podatkowej, o której mowa w art. 89 ust. 16 u.p.a., "Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego" 2012, no. 2(41). ; Klatt M., Meister M., The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality, Oxford University Press, 2012. ; Korycka-Zirk M., Teorie zasad prawa a zasada proporcjonalności, Warszawa 2012 ; Łętowska E., Wprowadzenie do problematyki proporcjonalności, (in:) P. Szymaniec (ed.), Zasada proporcjonalności w ochrona praw podstawowych w państwach Europy, Wałbrzych 2015. ; Mikuła P., Obowiązki dokumentacyjne i formalne w prawie podatkowym. Granice formalizmu, Warszawa 2019. ; Mikuła P., Zasada proporcjonalności w orzecznictwie TSUE dotyczącym podatku od wartości dodanej, "Kwartalnik Prawa Podatkowego" 2014, no. 2. ; Zakolska J., Zasada proporcjonalności w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, Warszawa 2008. ; 26 ; 4 ; 37 ; 51

This Note examines the applicability of the law of armed conflict, and particularly the concept of proportionality, to cyber attacks. After exploring deviations in terminology that may lead to confusion in the field, it considers the difficulties associated with applying an area of law first implemented in the post-World War II era to technologies that have only become vitally important in recent years. Delving into some of the facets of cyber technology that make it unique as a potential battleground, this Note examines why those qualities make the law of proportionality particularly difficult to apply. Acknowledging that the law of armed conflict, although perhaps inapt, is nonetheless compulsory, this Note ends with several suggestions that may assist military commanders in conducting cyber operations in away that comports with the law as it exists today.

The paper analysis the principle of proportionality, which is widely applied in the EU legal order and is therefore one of the fundamental principles of the system of the European Union. It is one of the legal principles that govern decision-making processes and common strategic objectives, and which are applicable when establishing European Union legislation and transposing it into national law, including in the area of criminal law, although the current analyses do not often focus on discussing this aspect. Due to its complexity and significance for the processes of establishing and applying the law, the principle of proportionality requires detailed and separate discussion, especially in the context of European criminal law.

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 protects civilians and civilian objects against expected incidental harm from an attack that is excessive to the military advantage anticipated from the attack. However, despite its status as a fundamental norm of international humanitarian law (IHL), key terms are not defined in relevant treaties nor do they benefit from critical judicial explanation. This has caused challenges for both academics and military commanders alike in explaining and applying the test for proportionality. The Article expands upon two points that were raised and generated interesting discussion at The Second Israel Defense Forces International Conference on the Law of Armed Conflict during a panel that dealt with contemporary issues in proportionality.

The existence of the principle of proportionality as a norm is undisputed, and military commanders in armed conflicts around the world apply it continuously. As the principle is formulated in general terms--prohibiting attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated--it is also clear that interpreting and applying the different elements of the principle is no simple task. This Article shall consider four select issues regarding different elements of the principle of proportionality. First is how to determine "excessive" (Part II). International law does not elaborate on how one must determine what is "excessive." What is generally accepted, however, is that proportionality is assessed inter alia on the basis of subjective considerations and values. The Final Report to the Prosecutor Reviewing the NATO Bombing Campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), for example, has espoused for this purpose the standard of a "reasonable military commander." How should this standard be understood and applied? Second is interpreting "military advantage" (Part III). Here, should the military context in which the attack or operation is taking place matter, and if so, to what extent? Third is the impact of defensive systems on determining" military advantage" (Part IV). Many parties to conflicts have some sort of defensive measures to protect civilians from attack (from passive systems, such as shelters and air raid warnings systems, to active defensive systems, such as aerial defense facilities or rocket interception mechanisms). Should the apparent reduced lethality of enemy capabilities as a result of these systems be taken into account when assessing military advantage in attacks against the enemy? Fourth is the impact of "force preservation" on determining "military advantage" (Part V). It is axiomatic that in conflict, preserving one's ...

This article concentrates on the 'duty of care' or 'diligence', a principle that has become ubiquitous in CJEU case law due to its central role in calibrating the intensity of judicial review of EU acts on the legislative, regulatory and single-case decision-making levels. It explores the development of the principle and critically reviews its use as well as whether it actually achieves the demands placed on it. The article further examines the tools developed and the emergence of the duty of care as a principle conferring individual rights in various procedural contexts. It describes how the duty of care has become a central link between on the one hand, a separation of powers-inspired respect for discretion of the institutions and bodies of the EU and, on the other hand, ensuring a rule of law based effective review of the legality of acts – a central feature in the EU specific approach to developing proportionality.

Cilvēktiesību aizskārumi, neprecīzas tiesību normu interpretācijas tiesu spriedumos un nevienāda prakse sodu piemērošanā rosināja pētīt samērīguma principu krimināltiesībās un kriminālprocesā. Maģistra darba aktualitāte saistīta ar Eiropas Savienības tiesību harmonizēšanas procesu. Izmantojot teoloģisko, vēsturisko un salīdzinošo iztulkošanas metodi, analizēts samērīguma principa jēdziens un saturs krimināltiesībās un kriminālprocesā, tā piemērošanas prakse Eiropā un Latvijā, principa izpausmes, tiesai nosakot sodu, kas ir zemāks par likumā paredzēto minimālo robežu, kā arī izvērtēta sodu diferenciācija atbilstoši samērīguma principam. Rezultātā, lai nodrošinātu samērīguma principu, izstrādāti priekšlikumi attiecībā uz subjektiem, kuru tiesības var tikt ierobežotas kriminālprocesa ietvaros un atrasti risinājumi, lai nodrošinātu principu Krimināllikuma sankcijās, nosakot krimināltiesiskās represijas veidu un mēru un samērojot to ar sabiedriskās drošības interesi. ; Abuse of human rights, inaccurate interpretation of the law in court judgments and uneven practice of punishment-these are some of the issues which initiated this research. The theme chosen for the research is up to date because of the law harmonization process in the European Union. Using theological, historical and comparative methods of interpretation, there is analyzed concept and content of the principle of proportionality of criminal law and procedure, its application in practice in Europe and Latvia, expression of the principle of proportionality, when the court imposes a sentence, which is below the statutory threshold, as well as assessed the penalty of differentiation according to the principle of proportionality. In the result, following tasks have been solved: drawn up proposals for subjects, whose rights may be restricted in criminal law and fond solutions to ensure the principle of proportionality in criminal law sanctions, determining the type and extent of criminal repression, weighing it with the interest of public safety.

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.

This article analyses three important developments in EU free movement law from the perspective of the structure of free movement law. Each of these developments – market access, horizontal direct effect and the assimilation of justifications – is caused by structural changes in the application of the free movement provisions. Firstly, the Court of Justice of the European Union has used 'backwards reasoning', which means that the Court no longer maintains the consecutive order of the structure. Moreover, the Court has increasingly merged what were previously distinct stages of inquiry in free movement cases. The result is that the proportionality test has become the most likely tool to solve free movement cases. This process of centralisation can be explained by the Court's aim to guarantee the effet utile of the free movement provisions. However, the centralisation of proportionality has a number of important consequences. Ultimately, the (almost) exclusive reliance on proportionality to solve free movement cases does not improve the functioning of the internal market. Therefore, the Court should also develop and rely on the other pillars of the structure of free movement law.