Suchergebnisse

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.

In this work the concept of principle of proportionality was analyzed and how the mentioned above principle has historically progressed since the ancient times. A huge impact regarding the content of proportionality principle develpment had Germany, since in this country the proportionality test and its elements have been applied for 50 years already. Also, in this work, the concepts of proportionality, such as double proportionality test are discussed. Later, it examines how the proportionality test is applied respectively by the ECJ and the ECtHR and how the elements of test are specifically assessed, for example, the ECJ sometimes applies not the full test but only its elements - adequacy and necessity. In this case, when the proportionality test is applied, the ECJ also takes into account the actions of which subjects are being examined (Member States or EU institutions) in order to choose the intensity and detail of test accordingly. On the same note, the work reviews the recent tendency in the application of the principle of proportionality and compares how the principle is interpreted in similar cases. Analyzing the application of the principle of proportionality in ECJ case law in relation to the protection of personal data, it shall be noted that the principle of proportionality is mainly used to help find balance between different fundamental rights. Examining how different fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality are balanced, it should be stated that the ECJ gives more discretion to the member states, in case the case concerns health care. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed by the Member States must be proportionate and the least restrictive measure shall be chosen, and it must be ensured that the measures taken are not discriminatory.

In this work the concept of principle of proportionality was analyzed and how the mentioned above principle has historically progressed since the ancient times. A huge impact regarding the content of proportionality principle develpment had Germany, since in this country the proportionality test and its elements have been applied for 50 years already. Also, in this work, the concepts of proportionality, such as double proportionality test are discussed. Later, it examines how the proportionality test is applied respectively by the ECJ and the ECtHR and how the elements of test are specifically assessed, for example, the ECJ sometimes applies not the full test but only its elements - adequacy and necessity. In this case, when the proportionality test is applied, the ECJ also takes into account the actions of which subjects are being examined (Member States or EU institutions) in order to choose the intensity and detail of test accordingly. On the same note, the work reviews the recent tendency in the application of the principle of proportionality and compares how the principle is interpreted in similar cases. Analyzing the application of the principle of proportionality in ECJ case law in relation to the protection of personal data, it shall be noted that the principle of proportionality is mainly used to help find balance between different fundamental rights. Examining how different fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality are balanced, it should be stated that the ECJ gives more discretion to the member states, in case the case concerns health care. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed by the Member States must be proportionate and the least restrictive measure shall be chosen, and it must be ensured that the measures taken are not discriminatory.

In this work the concept of principle of proportionality was analyzed and how the mentioned above principle has historically progressed since the ancient times. A huge impact regarding the content of proportionality principle develpment had Germany, since in this country the proportionality test and its elements have been applied for 50 years already. Also, in this work, the concepts of proportionality, such as double proportionality test are discussed. Later, it examines how the proportionality test is applied respectively by the ECJ and the ECtHR and how the elements of test are specifically assessed, for example, the ECJ sometimes applies not the full test but only its elements - adequacy and necessity. In this case, when the proportionality test is applied, the ECJ also takes into account the actions of which subjects are being examined (Member States or EU institutions) in order to choose the intensity and detail of test accordingly. On the same note, the work reviews the recent tendency in the application of the principle of proportionality and compares how the principle is interpreted in similar cases. Analyzing the application of the principle of proportionality in ECJ case law in relation to the protection of personal data, it shall be noted that the principle of proportionality is mainly used to help find balance between different fundamental rights. Examining how different fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality are balanced, it should be stated that the ECJ gives more discretion to the member states, in case the case concerns health care. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed by the Member States must be proportionate and the least restrictive measure shall be chosen, and it must be ensured that the measures taken are not discriminatory.

In this work the concept of principle of proportionality was analyzed and how the mentioned above principle has historically progressed since the ancient times. A huge impact regarding the content of proportionality principle develpment had Germany, since in this country the proportionality test and its elements have been applied for 50 years already. Also, in this work, the concepts of proportionality, such as double proportionality test are discussed. Later, it examines how the proportionality test is applied respectively by the ECJ and the ECtHR and how the elements of test are specifically assessed, for example, the ECJ sometimes applies not the full test but only its elements - adequacy and necessity. In this case, when the proportionality test is applied, the ECJ also takes into account the actions of which subjects are being examined (Member States or EU institutions) in order to choose the intensity and detail of test accordingly. On the same note, the work reviews the recent tendency in the application of the principle of proportionality and compares how the principle is interpreted in similar cases. Analyzing the application of the principle of proportionality in ECJ case law in relation to the protection of personal data, it shall be noted that the principle of proportionality is mainly used to help find balance between different fundamental rights. Examining how different fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality are balanced, it should be stated that the ECJ gives more discretion to the member states, in case the case concerns health care. Nevertheless, the restrictions imposed by the Member States must be proportionate and the least restrictive measure shall be chosen, and it must be ensured that the measures taken are not discriminatory.

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.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) publishes annual world reports based on analytical insights and objective statistics. According to a UNODC study, profits from money laundering in 2020 were estimated in the range from 2% to 5% 1, that is, from 800 to 2 trillion dollars of global GDP. Money laundering is the process of hiding an illegal source of criminal proceeds in order to make it appear legitimate. It is a lifeline and a driving force behind the organized crime industry. Money laundering has negative consequences for the economic, social and political sector in both the short and long term. At the national, supranational and international levels, various ways are being taken to combat ML by adopting anti-money laundering legislation and introducing new measures aimed at combating, since the problem is global, which means that the attention of the entire international community should be attracted. This thesis examines the importance of combating the laundering of funds obtained by criminal means, as well as identifies the problems of implementing one of the most important principles of international law — the principle of proportionality, in the implementation of legislation regulating the fight against money laundering, as well as analyzes whether preventive measures in the fight against money laundering can restrict fundamental freedoms and human rights in the EU and to what extent.In particular, the paper analyzes the current international legislation regulating the fight against money laundering, and also considers the possibility and extent of preventive measures to restrict fundamental human rights and freedoms in the EU. The analysis will focus on some decisions made by the European Court of Justice that reflect the problem of implementing the principle of proportionality. Special attention will be paid to two main cases: Ordre des Barreaux and Jyske Bank Gibraltar, and the decision of the ECHR in the case of Michaud v. France. In these cases, the European courts were asked to examine the compatibility and proportionality of the application of specific preventive measures of AML with human rights and the freedom to provide services enshrined in the TFEU. Based on the analysis of the court's practice, trends will be considered and recommendations will be presented aimed at developing institutional mechanisms for cooperation in the field of combating money laundering with minimizing the risks of offenses.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) publishes annual world reports based on analytical insights and objective statistics. According to a UNODC study, profits from money laundering in 2020 were estimated in the range from 2% to 5% 1, that is, from 800 to 2 trillion dollars of global GDP. Money laundering is the process of hiding an illegal source of criminal proceeds in order to make it appear legitimate. It is a lifeline and a driving force behind the organized crime industry. Money laundering has negative consequences for the economic, social and political sector in both the short and long term. At the national, supranational and international levels, various ways are being taken to combat ML by adopting anti-money laundering legislation and introducing new measures aimed at combating, since the problem is global, which means that the attention of the entire international community should be attracted. This thesis examines the importance of combating the laundering of funds obtained by criminal means, as well as identifies the problems of implementing one of the most important principles of international law — the principle of proportionality, in the implementation of legislation regulating the fight against money laundering, as well as analyzes whether preventive measures in the fight against money laundering can restrict fundamental freedoms and human rights in the EU and to what extent.In particular, the paper analyzes the current international legislation regulating the fight against money laundering, and also considers the possibility and extent of preventive measures to restrict fundamental human rights and freedoms in the EU. The analysis will focus on some decisions made by the European Court of Justice that reflect the problem of implementing the principle of proportionality. Special attention will be paid to two main cases: Ordre des Barreaux and Jyske Bank Gibraltar, and the decision of the ECHR in the case of Michaud v. France. In these cases, the European courts were asked to examine the compatibility and proportionality of the application of specific preventive measures of AML with human rights and the freedom to provide services enshrined in the TFEU. Based on the analysis of the court's practice, trends will be considered and recommendations will be presented aimed at developing institutional mechanisms for cooperation in the field of combating money laundering with minimizing the risks of offenses.

The article focuses both on general issues of law reatroactivity and on specific issue of retroactive application of the law on civil confiscation. The latter law currently (Fall of 2019) is in the drafting process at the Parliament of Lithuania. The authors discuss the idea, presented in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, that issues of retroactivity may be approached uniformly, following the same (strict) formula both in penal and other matters. This attitude differs from the jurisprudence of European courts (both ECHR and ECJ) and of German and Latvian Constitutional courts where different approach to penal matters and other (regulatory) matters prevail. The authors note, that unilateral restrictive approach to the issue of law retroactivity in some cases may harm exceptionally important public interests. It might be the case of civil confiscation. If future law on civil confiscation would face challenge in the Lithuanian Constitutional Court regarding retroactivity and the Court would follow its precedents, public interest in public security from corruption and organized crime might be neglected. The paper also discusses the criteria of reasonable retroactive application of the law that were developed in the jurisprudence of the European courts. The authors point out that the obligations and legal consequences that are provided in the draft law on civil confiscation, have already been provided in the law that introduced extended confiscation in the end of 2010. Therefore the criteria of foreseeability would be met as far as the affected assets are acquired after the end of 2010. Furthermore, criteria of proportionality in case of civil confiscation seem plausible as far as this measure is provided for the unexplained property that is controlled by the persons who are related to the serious, organized crime or corruption. The findings of the ECHR in the case Gogitidze v. Georgia and in other cases support these assumptions.

The article focuses both on general issues of law reatroactivity and on specific issue of retroactive application of the law on civil confiscation. The latter law currently (Fall of 2019) is in the drafting process at the Parliament of Lithuania. The authors discuss the idea, presented in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, that issues of retroactivity may be approached uniformly, following the same (strict) formula both in penal and other matters. This attitude differs from the jurisprudence of European courts (both ECHR and ECJ) and of German and Latvian Constitutional courts where different approach to penal matters and other (regulatory) matters prevail. The authors note, that unilateral restrictive approach to the issue of law retroactivity in some cases may harm exceptionally important public interests. It might be the case of civil confiscation. If future law on civil confiscation would face challenge in the Lithuanian Constitutional Court regarding retroactivity and the Court would follow its precedents, public interest in public security from corruption and organized crime might be neglected. The paper also discusses the criteria of reasonable retroactive application of the law that were developed in the jurisprudence of the European courts. The authors point out that the obligations and legal consequences that are provided in the draft law on civil confiscation, have already been provided in the law that introduced extended confiscation in the end of 2010. Therefore the criteria of foreseeability would be met as far as the affected assets are acquired after the end of 2010. Furthermore, criteria of proportionality in case of civil confiscation seem plausible as far as this measure is provided for the unexplained property that is controlled by the persons who are related to the serious, organized crime or corruption. The findings of the ECHR in the case Gogitidze v. Georgia and in other cases support these assumptions.

The article focuses both on general issues of law reatroactivity and on specific issue of retroactive application of the law on civil confiscation. The latter law currently (Fall of 2019) is in the drafting process at the Parliament of Lithuania. The authors discuss the idea, presented in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, that issues of retroactivity may be approached uniformly, following the same (strict) formula both in penal and other matters. This attitude differs from the jurisprudence of European courts (both ECHR and ECJ) and of German and Latvian Constitutional courts where different approach to penal matters and other (regulatory) matters prevail. The authors note, that unilateral restrictive approach to the issue of law retroactivity in some cases may harm exceptionally important public interests. It might be the case of civil confiscation. If future law on civil confiscation would face challenge in the Lithuanian Constitutional Court regarding retroactivity and the Court would follow its precedents, public interest in public security from corruption and organized crime might be neglected. The paper also discusses the criteria of reasonable retroactive application of the law that were developed in the jurisprudence of the European courts. The authors point out that the obligations and legal consequences that are provided in the draft law on civil confiscation, have already been provided in the law that introduced extended confiscation in the end of 2010. Therefore the criteria of foreseeability would be met as far as the affected assets are acquired after the end of 2010. Furthermore, criteria of proportionality in case of civil confiscation seem plausible as far as this measure is provided for the unexplained property that is controlled by the persons who are related to the serious, organized crime or corruption. The findings of the ECHR in the case Gogitidze v. Georgia and in other cases support these assumptions.