Principle of Proportionality and The Principle of Reasonableness

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
Filippo Borriello
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Many ◽  
The One ◽  
Council Of State ◽  
The Eu

This paper examines a principle of particular relevance for administrative action and the concept of good administration, namely the principle of reasonableness, at the EU level, from the point of view of the Italian administrative doctrine, and jurisprudence of the Council of State. Specific attention will be paid to the many faces and functions of reasonableness, in administrative proceeding as well as in judicial review of discretion, and its connection with the idea of proportionality. Moreover, this article will discuss the influence and effects of the application of general principles of EU law on the Italian legal order. Finally, it will describe the EU principle of reasonableness has influenced the Italian administrative (case) law. This article aims to show that on the one hand the European principles of reasonableness and proportionality seem to be smoothly absorbed in the Italian administrative case law; on the other, the Europeanisation process still encounters resistance from a part of the Italian doctrine that persists in categorizing reasonableness as a principle different from proportionality.

The Duty of Care in EU Public Law – A Principle Between Discretion and Proportionality

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-112
Author(s):  
Herwig C.H. Hofmann
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

This article concentrates on the 'duty of care' or 'diligence', a principle that has become ubiquitous in CJEU case law due to its central role in calibrating the intensity of judicial review of EU acts on the legislative, regulatory and single-case decision-making levels. This article explores the development of the principle and critically reviews its use as well as whether it actually achieves the demands placed on it. The article further examines the tools developed and the emergence of the duty of care as a principle conferring individual rights in various procedural contexts. The article describes how the duty of care has become a central link between on the one hand, a separation of powers-inspired respect for discretion of the institutions and bodies of the EU and, on the other hand, ensuring a rule of law based effective review of the legality of acts – a central feature in the EU specific approach to developing proportionality.

The Constitutional Principle of Accountability: A Study of Contemporary South African Case Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuks Okpaluba
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Many

‘Accountability’ is one of the democratic values entrenched in the Constitution of South Africa, 1996. It is a value recognised throughout the Constitution and imposed upon the law-making organs of state, the Executive, the Judiciary and all public functionaries. This constitutional imperative is given pride of place among the other founding values: equality before the law, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. This study therefore sets out to investigate how the courts have grappled with the interpretation and application of the principle of accountability, the starting point being the relationship between accountability and judicial review. Therefore, in the exercise of its judicial review power, a court may enquire whether the failure of a public functionary to comply with a constitutional duty of accountability renders the decision made illegal, irrational or unreasonable. One of the many facets of the principle of accountability upon which this article dwells is to ascertain how the courts have deployed that expression in making the state and its agencies liable for the delictual wrongs committed against an individual in vindication of a breach of the individual’s constitutional right in the course of performing a public duty. Here, accountability and breach of public duty; the liability of the state for detaining illegal immigrants contrary to the prescripts of the law; the vicarious liability of the state for the criminal acts of the police and other law-enforcement officers (as in police rape cases and misuse of official firearms by police officers), and the liability of the state for delictual conduct in the context of public procurement are discussed. Having carefully analysed the available case law, this article concludes that no public functionary can brush aside the duty of accountability wherever it is imposed without being in breach of a vital constitutional mandate. Further, it is the constitutional duty of the courts, when called upon, to declare such act or conduct an infringement of the Constitution.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Public debt limit of the EU Member States and its impact on polish legal system – considerations in the context of public finance stability

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-255
Author(s):  
Wojciech Bożek
Keyword(s):  
Public Debt ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fiscal Rules ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

The author’s goal is to determine the consequences of implementing treaty solutions concerning public debt to the Polish Constitution and to define the differences between the methodology of counting public debt in the European Community and Polish legal order. The raised issues concern important problems from the substantive and practical point of view, therefore the study’s content is important for science and practice. The research methodology was based on the analysis of the EU and Poland’s normative solutions, opinions expressed in the international and national literature on the subject, and the case law of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. The paper applies mostly the dogmatic-analytic and legal-comparative method with reference to available statistical data on Poland’s public debt. The study allowed the author to gain an understanding of the significance of fiscal rules implemented at the EU level to ensure stability. Article 216(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland indicates that the treaty solutions regarding the reference value (public debt-to-GDP ratio) were reenacted. However, until this day, the EU and Poland’s debt measurement methods do not fully correspond. In order to counteract excessive debt incursion, a state is required to take not only efficient actions but also ones that are adequate and, to some extent, flexible. This is an expression of acceptance of the EU’s preventive assumptions. However, there is still no full correlation in the methodology of calculating public debt in the EU and the Republic of Poland.

Pleasure As a Subject of Logic. To the Interpretation of Philebus. Part I

2021 ◽  
pp. 144-153
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Bugai ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Logical Status ◽  
The Many ◽  
The One ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The task of the paper is to determine what is the philosophical meaning of Plato’s Philebus. To define the meaning is to show which way of understanding Phile­bus is the most fruitful, most fully grasping and revealing what forms the sub­stantive core of Plato’s text. It’s no secret that the meaning of Philebus is not at all self-evident. From our point of view, the main subject of the dialogue lies not in the plane of ontology, but in ethics, and what is taken for ontological aspects in Philebus is much more related to the logical and methodological conditions for solving the main ethical problem. Therefore, in this article an attempt was made to show that the key themes of Philebus(the problem of the one-many, the relationship of the four kinds of beings, the theory of false pleasures) are inter­nally related. The question of the relationship between the one and the many is raised in connection with the clarification of the question of the logical status of pleasure. Division into four kinds (limit, unlimited, mixture, reason) is the ful­fillment of the methodological requirement for the necessity of division. The ana­lysis of pleasures following this methodological introduction examines pleasure in an entirely new light, in the light of truth/falsity.

12. Grounds for judicial review: irrationality, proportionality, merits-based judicial review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Impact

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the grounds for judicial review. These include irrationality—meaning unreasonableness—which is now linked to the principle of proportionality. In addition, the relevant case law and key principles concerning distinction between procedural and merits based judicial review are fully explained. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review is assessed generally. The emergence and development of the ‘outcomes is all’ approach to judicial review where breach of convention rights is alleged is explored by examining a number of significant House of Lords cases.

The Reasonableness of Proportionality in the Australian Administrative Law Context

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-90
Author(s):  
Janina Boughey
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Prevailing View

Although the High Court has never ruled on the issue, the prevailing view has been that unless parliaments enact bills of rights, the principle of proportionality does not and cannot play a role in judicial review of administrative decisions in Australia. Yet in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, a majority of the High Court hinted that this may not be the case. This article analyses the reasons for Australia's longstanding reluctance to embrace proportionality in the administrative law context, and whether the decision in Li has altered this position. It then explores overseas developments in proportionality review which reveal that the principle may take on many forms in the administrative law context, with differing implications for the separation of powers. The article finds that it might be possible to accommodate certain methods of applying proportionality within Australia's judicial review framework, but not without significant broader changes to judicial review of administrative action in Australia.

scholarly journals Case C-616/17 Blaise and Others: The precautionary principle and its role in judicial review – Glyphosate and the regulatory framework for pesticides

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-542
Author(s):  
Sabrina Röttger-Wirtz
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Active Substance ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

The approval renewal of glyphosate as an active substance for pesticides in the EU has also kept the Court of Justice occupied. Within this line of case law, the Blaise case is the most recent one. In this preliminary reference procedure the Court was asked to review the validity of the Plant Protection Products Regulation 1107/2009, examined against the precautionary principle as benchmark. The case is relevant not only for the questions raised about the Regulation, but also as it sheds a light on the – albeit limited – use of the precautionary principle in the judicial review of EU legislative measure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document