Suchergebnisse

An eviction is a most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home. European case law pushes towards more protection of (vulnerable) residents in housing law relationships, and limits property rights and the freedom of contract of property owners. This has resulted in intense debates about the horizontal effects of human rights law and the impact of human rights in landlord-tenant relationships. This article deepens our understanding of the meaning and the influence of human-rights based proportionality enquiries in eviction cases in the rental sector. It assesses how the right to advance a proportionality defence is implemented and whether any indications exists that human-rights based proportionality enquiries improve the legal position of tenants. Doctrinal research and comparative legal analysis show that this is not the case in a large share of the contracting states due to the unwillingness of national judges and lawmakers. Besides that, a quantitative case law analysis shows that there are no indications for a true paradigmatic shift. Although tenants do put forward proportionality defences, no significant differences are found between cases in which the tenant raise a proportionality defence and cases in which they do not advance such a defence. Yet, the European law's push for more protection of vulnerable people might in the end lead to some systemic as well as practical changes. Proportionality enquiries may influence property owners' litigation strategies, and as a result, have an impact in the stages before and after the court procedure too.

Abstract
What does proportionality reasoning mean for decision support in international humanitarian law (ihl)? We first consider contemporary ihl commentaries on proportionality as an analogue form of decision support through a paradigmatic example. Over time, proportionality in ihl has changed from being a rule-specific space for discretionary decision making to a much broader compromise-seeking within boundaries marked by law. Today, proportionality is a master norm in ihl, remaking rules by stealth and enabling the accommodation of novel master technologies as lawful. Artificial Intelligence (ai) support for military decision making is one such master technology that resonates particularly well with the inner structure of proportionality thinking: both build on cost-benefit analysis and engender the quantification of the world through data collection. We analyse how cost-benefit analysis and digitalization and algorithmic processing intersect in the U.S. legal context, to then proliferate into U.S. warfare and decision support systems, and onwards into ihl.

A court can rule on the proportionality of an administrative decision without infringing on the decision–making primacy of the administrative authorities. It can go quite far in doing so, as long as it uses the proper method. Characteristic for this method is not so much that it uses the proportionality principle as a rule under which the facts are subsumed, but as a framework for a discussion that is held between parties during the proceedings, under the direction of the court. If the court finds that the administrative body has not demonstrated a sufficient basis for its choices, it need not confine itself to an annulment on formal grounds. It can take its examination further and give parties the opportunity to consider alternative decisions. This method enables the court to come to a substantive and final judgment.