Fundamental Freedoms and the Cursed Proportionality Test

2019 ◽  
pp. 193-211
Author(s):  
Carl Baudenbacher
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Proportionality Test

scholarly journals The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Christoph K. Winter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Hindsight Bias ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Cognitive Illusions ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis Article analyzes the value of behavioral economics for EU judicial decision-making. The first part introduces the foundations of behavioral economics by focusing on cognitive illusions, prospect theory, and the underlying distinction between different processes of thought. The second part examines the influence of selected biases and heuristics, namely the anchoring effect, availability bias, zero-risk bias, and hindsight bias on diverse legal issues in EU law including, among others, the scope of the fundamental freedoms, the proportionality test as well as the roles of the Advocate General and Reporting Judge. The Article outlines how behavioral economic findings can be taken into account to improve judicial decision-making. Accordingly, the adaptation of judicial training concerning cognitive illusions, the establishment of a de minimis rule regarding the scope of the fundamental freedoms, and the use of economic models when determining the impact of certain measures on fundamental freedoms is suggested. Finally, an “unbiased jury” concentrating exclusively on specific factual issues such as causal connections within the proportionality test is necessary, if the hindsight bias is to be avoided. While it is of great importance to take behavioral economic findings into account, judicial decision-making is unlikely to become flawless based on natural intelligence. Despite bearing fundamental risks, artificial intelligence may provide means to achieve greater fairness, consistency, and legal certainty in the future.

scholarly journals Od predmeta Mccann do predmeta F.J.M.

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski ◽  
Renata Šantek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
Analyse Case

The authors discuss and analyse case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the right to respect for home under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with respect the issue of proportionality. In the paper, the proportionality category was viewed as a criterion for securing protection and as a material precondition for deciding whether the State party's interference with the right to respect for home was proportionate. The cases in which the applicant's eviction occurred after national proceedings for the enforcement of mortgages were addressed. In this context, the genesis of the proportionality category was analysed, from the cases where the Court found it necessary to examine the proportionality to the cases where the Court did not consider the proportionality test necessary.

16. Exceptions to the free movement rules

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Nic Shuibhne
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
Movement Rules

This chapter examines when Member States can lawfully displace the obligations placed on them by free movement law. Free movement rights can be restricted under EU law in two ways. For discriminatory or distinctly applicable restrictive measures, if a derogation ground expressly provided for in the TFEU can be engaged. For indirectly or non-discriminatory, that is, indistinctly applicable restrictive measures, if an overriding requirement relating to the public interest that is capable of justifying a restriction of the fundamental freedoms established by the Treaty can be demonstratedIn both cases, the restriction also has to satisfy a proportionality test, that is, it is both appropriate and necessary for achieving the relevant public interest objective.

Council of Europe

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Committee ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Two Bodies

This chapter presents an overview of the adjudicative bodies of the Council of Europe—namely, the European Court of Human Rights (established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) and the European Committee of Social Rights—and outlines their mandates with regard to integrating UN human rights treaties. It analyses how these two bodies have cited the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The dataset was forty-five cases dealt with by the Court and two collective complaints decided by the Committee that cite the CRPD up to 2016. Notwithstanding the relatively small size of the dataset, the conclusions are that the Council of Europe system has yet to engage seriously in the CRPD’s jurisprudential opportunities. The reasons for this cannot be ascertained from a desk-based methodology, and further research is required.

Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Stone Sweet ◽  
Jud Mathews
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Constitutional State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Constitutional Justice ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Basic Features

This book focuses on the law and politics of rights protection in democracies, and in human rights regimes in Europe, the Americas, and Africa. After introducing the basic features of modern constitutions, with their emphasis on rights and judicial review, the authors present a theory of proportionality that explains why constitutional judges embraced it. Proportionality analysis is a highly intrusive mode of judicial supervision: it permits state officials to limit rights, but only when necessary to achieve a sufficiently important public interest. Since the 1950s, virtually every powerful domestic and international court has adopted proportionality as the central method for protecting rights. In doing so, judges positioned themselves to review all important legislative and administrative decisions, and to invalidate them as unconstitutional when they fail the proportionality test. The result has been a massive—and global—transformation of law and politics. The book explicates the concepts of “trusteeship,” the “system of constitutional justice,” the “effectiveness” of rights adjudication, and the “zone of proportionality.” A wide range of case studies analyze: how proportionality has spread, and variation in how it is deployed; the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved and resisted similar doctrines; the role of proportionality in building ongoing “constitutional dialogues” with the other branches of government; and the importance of the principle to the courts of regional human rights regimes. While there is variance in the intensity of proportionality-based dialogues, such interactions are today at the heart of governance in the modern constitutional state and beyond.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document