Suchergebnisse

Some of the rights enshrined in the ECHR are absolute (the prohibition of torture (Article 3), the prohibition of slavery and forced labor (Article 4)). It means that they can under no circumstances be restricted or reduced. All other rights may be partially restricted under the terms of Art. 15 of the ECHR, in cases of social urgency – martial / emergency within the limits necessary to prevent the threat to the life of the nation. Some ECHR articles explicitly state the conditions for restrictions on human rights and freedoms. So, the right to privacy (Art. 8), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 9), freedom of expression (Art. 10) and freedom of assembly (Art. 11) may be restricted, if required by the law and is necessary in a democratic society. Thus, conventional rights may also have inherent limitations. In particular, in some cases, the rights guaranteed by the various articles of the ECHR collide. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to research the essence and core elements of the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. To evaluate the proportionality of an interference with a right or freedom, it is necessary to determine its impact on the law, the causes of the interference, its results, the importance of local circumstances, and the complexity of objective evaluation of relevant rights and interests. It is the states that must justify such intervention. Herewith, the reasons should be 'substantial and sufficient', the need for the restriction 'established by the law', the exceptions 'clearly stated', and the interference must comply with 'urgent social need'. According to the principle of proportionality, all legal actions and state decisions must be established by the law, necessary, relevant (suitable) and least restricts the right of the individual. In addition, the proportionality test must ensure that a person's loss from the restriction of the right is commensurate with the benefit from the aim pursued. The balance is fair, if the restriction does not encroach on the very essence of the right and does not cause its real content to be lost. In assessing the proportionality of a state's interference, the ECtHR applies the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, which can be broad or narrow. Thus, the principle of proportionality, which is closely linked to the principle of effective protection, significantly influences the case law of the ECtHR. Most of the disputes over proportionality arise in the context of human rights restrictions guaranteed by Articles 8 (2) – 11 (2) of the ECHR. Therefore, the principle of proportionality requires national public authorities to strike a fair balance between competing public and private interests at stake. The ECtHR assesses such factors, as the importance of competing interests, objectivity (adequacy, reasonableness) of the restriction, the existence of consensus among Council of Europe member States on the issue under consideration.

This collection provides a comprehensive account of Robert Alexy's legal theory. It is divided into three parts: the nature of law; constitutional rights, human rights, and proportionality; and the relation between argumentation, correctness, and law.

This paper examines the rise to prominence of proportionality analysis in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that any law affecting life, liberty and security of the person must not be arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate. The expansion of section 7's substantive scope to include means-testing government action re-engages concerns about judicial capriciousness that have troubled section 7 since its early days. This paper examines this concern in light of section 7's history. It suggests that the prominence of proportionality analysis in section 7 may be understood as, in part, an effort to avoid the difficult task of setting normative boundaries on the scope of the provision. This paper argues that substantive values are inescapable as courts identify and frame these goals and scrutinize proportionality with close attention to real-world impacts of government action. Drawing on comparisons with the role played by proportionality analysis in section 1 of the Charter, the paper suggests that means-testing government policy should be guided by the Court's institutional role, but with careful attention to the substantive purpose of section 7 of the Charter as a right, a purpose that includes protection against overweening majoritarianism. Such a purposive interpretation may permit proportionality analysis to be informed by democratic deficits and political powerlessness in government law and policy-making processes.

National courts are of vital importance for the effectiveness of European law. In general, they are supposed to handle the bulk of the cases in which European law comes forward, a logical result following the development of the (direct) effects of European law in the national legal order.
Several authors in the European law doctrine observed a notable variety of review intensity by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereafter: the Court) on the proportionality principle in handling free movement cases. Sometimes the Court employs an intense test; other times the approach of the Court is remarkably restrained. Also, in cases that concern a similar field of the law, this variety may be observed. The general line of the Court is considerably clear, but the review intensity also tends towards being a sort of 'black box'.
This constitutes a problem for the effectiveness of European free movement law at a decentralized level, at national courts. Research into the Dutch court experience demonstrates that it seems as if it is not completely clear how national courts should apply the proportionality principle à l'européen.
This contribution concentrates on the application of the proportionality principle by Dutch courts when handling free movement of services and freedom of establishment cases. A few general lines will be identifi ed on the basis of this case–law and some suggestions for the Court on the basis of the decentralized application will be put forward.

Thomas F. Cotter (University of Minnesota Law School) & Chung-Lun Shen (National Chengchi University (NCCU)) have posted Destruction, Proportionality, and Sustainability: A Law-and-Economics Analysis on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This paper undertakes a law-and-economics analysis of the remedy of...

The correct application of the proportionality principle in disciplinary matters, has generated a series of conflicts for the disciplinary judge at the moment to sanction the officers of the Judicial Branch, generating in some occasions a strong tension with other constitutional and legal principles, whereby its pretended with this document to stablish if actually the proportionality and legality principles are rightly applied, specifically about the officers of the Judicial Branch, investigated and judged by the Sectional and Superior Councils of the Judiciary. This article pretends then to determine, if the normative elements inside the 734 of 2002 Law, are sufficient and suitable to applicate correctly the proportionality principle harmonically with the legality principle, at the moment to stablish the disciplinary sanction that is imposed to the officers of the Judicial Branch; all this developed under the frame of a legal social investigation, that inquires at the bottom of the disciplinary jurisdiction —disciplinary operators— the legal and factual phenomena that they deal with at the moment to quantify the sanction, using at the time an inductive deductive investigation method, analyzing a few disciplinary decisions where officers of the Judicial Branch had been sanctioned. Finally this dissertation will be developed analyzing the application of this two principles in the disciplinary, legislative field and the decisions of the Constitutional Court, to present a series of recommendations facing the application of the disciplinary power in the investigations followed to the officers of the Judicial Branch. ; La correcta aplicación del principio de proporcionalidad en materia disciplinaria, ha generado una serie de conflictos para el juez disciplinario al momento de sancionar a los funcionarios de la Rama Judicial, presentándose en algunas ocasiones una fuerte tensión con otros principios legales y constitucionales, por lo cual se pretende con este documento establecer si en la actualidad se aplican de forma correcta los principios de proporcionalidad y legalidad en materia disciplinaria, específicamente respecto de los funcionarios de la Rama Judicial, investigados y sancionados por los Consejos Seccionales del país en primera instancia, y en segunda, por el Consejo Superior de la Judicatura. Este artículo busca entonces determinar, si los elementos normativos que se encuentran dentro de la Ley 734 de 2002, son suficientes e idóneos en la aplicación adecuada del principio de proporcionalidad en consonancia con el principio de legalidad, al momento de la tasación de las sanciones disciplinarias que se les imponen a los funcionarios públicos de la Rama Judicial. Todo esto desarrollado bajo un marco de investigación sociojurídica, que indaga al interior de la Jurisdicción Disciplinaria —operadores disciplinarios— los fenómenos fácticos y jurídicos que enfrentan al momento de la cuantificación de la sanción, empleando a su vez un método inductivo-deductivo de investigación, analizando varias providencias disciplinarias en las cuales han resultado sancionados funcionarios de la Rama Judicial. Finalmente, esta disertación se desarrollará analizando la aplicación de estos dos principios en el campo disciplinario, legislativo y en los pronunciamientos de la Corte Constitucional, para así presentar una serie de recomendaciones frente al ejercicio de la potestad disciplinaria en las investigaciones a funcionarios de la Rama Judicial.

The correct application of the proportionality principle in disciplinary matters, has generated a series of conflicts for the disciplinary judge at the moment to sanction the officers of the Judicial Branch, generating in some occasions a strong tension with other constitutional and legal principles, whereby its pretended with this document to stablish if actually the proportionality and legality principles are rightly applied, specifically about the officers of the Judicial Branch, investigated and judged by the Sectional and Superior Councils of the Judiciary. This article pretends then to determine, if the normative elements inside the 734 of 2002 Law, are sufficient and suitable to applicate correctly the proportionality principle harmonically with the legality principle, at the moment to stablish the disciplinary sanction that is imposed to the officers of the Judicial Branch; all this developed under the frame of a legal social investigation, that inquires at the bottom of the disciplinary jurisdiction —disciplinary operators— the legal and factual phenomena that they deal with at the moment to quantify the sanction, using at the time an inductive deductive investigation method, analyzing a few disciplinary decisions where officers of the Judicial Branch had been sanctioned. Finally this dissertation will be developed analyzing the application of this two principles in the disciplinary, legislative field and the decisions of the Constitutional Court, to present a series of recommendations facing the application of the disciplinary power in the investigations followed to the officers of the Judicial Branch. ; La correcta aplicación del principio de proporcionalidad en materia disciplinaria, ha generado una serie de conflictos para el juez disciplinario al momento de sancionar a los funcionarios de la Rama Judicial, presentándose en algunas ocasiones una fuerte tensión con otros principios legales y constitucionales, por lo cual se pretende con este documento establecer si en la actualidad se aplican de forma correcta los principios de proporcionalidad y legalidad en materia disciplinaria, específicamente respecto de los funcionarios de la Rama Judicial, investigados y sancionados por los Consejos Seccionales del país en primera instancia, y en segunda, por el Consejo Superior de la Judicatura. Este artículo busca entonces determinar, si los elementos normativos que se encuentran dentro de la Ley 734 de 2002, son suficientes e idóneos en la aplicación adecuada del principio de proporcionalidad en consonancia con el principio de legalidad, al momento de la tasación de las sanciones disciplinarias que se les imponen a los funcionarios públicos de la Rama Judicial. Todo esto desarrollado bajo un marco de investigación sociojurídica, que indaga al interior de la Jurisdicción Disciplinaria —operadores disciplinarios— los fenómenos fácticos y jurídicos que enfrentan al momento de la cuantificación de la sanción, empleando a su vez un método inductivo-deductivo de investigación, analizando varias providencias disciplinarias en las cuales han resultado sancionados funcionarios de la Rama Judicial. Finalmente, esta disertación se desarrollará analizando la aplicación de estos dos principios en el campo disciplinario, legislativo y en los pronunciamientos de la Corte Constitucional, para así presentar una serie de recomendaciones frente al ejercicio de la potestad disciplinaria en las investigaciones a funcionarios de la Rama Judicial.