The Proportionality Principle

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Bennedsen ◽  
Kasper Meisner Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Proportionality Principle

Constitutional Pluralism and Transnational Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Stone Sweet ◽  
Clare Ryan
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Transnational Justice ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Constitutional Pluralism ◽  
Combined Impact ◽  
Proportionality Principle

In Europe, a cosmopolitan legal order was instantiated through the combined impact of Protocol no. 11 of the ECHR (1998), and the incorporation of the Convention into national legal systems. As a result, two processes—(i) the evolution of constitutional pluralism at the national level; and (ii) the development of rights protection at the transnational level—became causally connected to one another. The first undermined traditional models of domestic orders wherein the notions of constitutional unity and centralized sovereignty reinforced one another. The second process created a multi-level legal system whose effectiveness depends on the extent to which the European Court is able to induce and sustain the cooperation of national courts and officials. The constitutionalization of the proportionality principle, at both the domestic and transnational levels, provided a doctrinal interface for inter-jurisdictional dialogue, and the collective enforcement of the UPR.

scholarly journals The European Economic Constitution after the PSPP Judgment: Towards Integrative Liberalism?

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1058-1077
Author(s):  
Matthias Goldmann
Keyword(s):  
State Intervention ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Profound Change ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Economic Constitution ◽  
Post War ◽  
Reactive Mode ◽  
Proportionality Principle ◽  
Market Liberalism

AbstractThis article argues that the PSPP judgment effectively buries the era of financial liberalism, which has dominated the European economic constitution for decades. It raises the curtain on a new political paradigm, which I call “integrative liberalism”. Whereas the financial crisis put financial liberalism under strain, the development since then has been contradictory, torn between state intervention and market liberalism, focused above all on buying time rather than finding a new constitutional equilibrium. Now, together with the measures adopted in response to COVID-19, the PSPP judgment paves the way for profound change. Integrative liberalism is characterized by an overall shift from the market to the state, mitigating the post-crisis insistence on austerity and conditionality. Contrary to the embedded liberalism of the post-war era, integrative liberalism operates in a corrective and reactive mode with a focus on goals and principles, lacking the emphasis on long-term planning. Like every political paradigm, integrative liberalism ushers in a new understanding of the law. It puts the emphasis on context instead of discipline, and it elevates the proportionality principle. If integrative liberalism is to succeed, however, the democratic legitimacy of the Eurosystem and its independence require serious reconsideration.

Parkland Dedication: How are Cities Implementing the Rough Proportionality Principle?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Crompton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Service Level ◽  
Professional Engineer ◽  
Large Cities ◽  
General Welfare ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Development ◽  
Proportionality Principle

As part of local governments’ mandate to regulate for the “health, safety, and general welfare” of their residents, many have included a parkland dedication exaction on new development in their sub-division regulations. The rules governing the magnitude of the dedication were established in 1994 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v City of Tigard. The Court ruled there must be “rough proportionality” between a dedication exaction and the projected new demand from a development. The ruling requires a local jurisdiction to be proactive in quantifying the justification for the magnitude of a dedication it imposes, but the Court offered no guidance on how the quantification should be done. This study’s two objectives were: (i) to investigate the extent to which cities’ ordinances comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, and (ii) to identify best practices among cities’ ordinances relating to operationalizing the “rough proportionality” principle. Parkland dedication ordinances were analyzed from 73 Texas cities, supplemented by insights from those of 29 large cities outside Texas. In 65 of the Texas ordinances where “rough proportionality” comparisons could be made, the analyses found percentage under-dedications ranging from 9% to 1,250%. In defiance of the Court’s ruling, almost two-thirds of the ordinances showed no evidence of using an empirical quantitative method to establish “rough proportionality.” Many of these ordinances provided a service level ratio, but it appeared to be arbitrarily determined. These findings are especially egregious in Texas, since state law requires that the quantification of “rough proportionality” be certified as being appropriate by a professional engineer. Three models of best practice that used empirical methods to derive rough proportionality and met the Supreme Court guidelines are identified, described, and illustrated. Under-dedication often reflects the reluctance of elected officials to antagonize the development community. Thus, four strategies are offered to facilitate their efforts to impose a substantive exaction that relieves the burden on taxpayers, while demonstrating sensitivity to any protests arising from members of the development community.

COVID-19 “Green Pass”: a Lesson on the Proportionality Principle from Galicia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Luca Roncati ◽  
Monica Roncati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Health Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Social Tension ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The World ◽  
Proportionality Principle ◽  
New Millennium

Abstract Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the most dramatic pandemic of the new millennium, and extraordinary measures concerning with health, law and policy are required around the world. One of these is without doubts the “green pass”, officially known in the European Union (EU) as EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC). Initially conceived as a tool for overcoming the lockdown restrictions, it has unexpectedly turned into a means of discrimination between pass holders and non-holders, thus increasing social tension at the expense of solidarity and brotherhood. Here, we analyze in depth the dark sides of the “green pass” in the light of the European and international legislation and of the ongoing pandemic scenario.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document