THE ELEMENTS OF PROPORTIONALITY AS A PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS LIMITATIONS
Abstract
The article discusses the elements of proportionality as the most important requirement that must be satisfied in the limitation of human rights. There are four major elements of this principle: legitimacy, adequacy, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu. Legitimacy means that limitation must pursue a legitimate aim. Adequacy means that the chosen measure must be suitable for achieving that aim. Furthermore, the government may only use the least restrictive measure for achieving the aim, the one that causes least damage to protected rights and interests. In order to be deemed proportionate, the limitation must satisfy the test of proportionality stricto sensu, which means that achieving a particular aim must be important enough to justify the damage which will be caused to individual rights. This article particularly focuses on the application and the significance of these elements in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Serbia.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Arai Y., Arai-Takahashi Y., (2001), The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Intersentia, Antwerpen – Oxford – New York
Barak A., (2012a), Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations, Cambridge University Press, New York
Barak A. (2012b), Proportionality (2); in: Rosenfeld M. and Sajó A., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford, 2012, Oxford University Press, pp. 738-755;
Harbo T., (2015), The Function of Proportionality Analysis in European Law, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden
Cianciardo J., (2010), The Principle of Proportionality: The Challenges of Human Rights, 3 Journal of Civil Law Studies (2010), available at: http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol3/iss1/11
Schabas W., (2015), The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schlink B., Proportionality (1); in: Rosenfeld M. and Sajó A., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford, 2012, Oxford University Press, 718-737
Настић М., (2010), Принцип пропорционалности у пракси уставних судова и Европског суда за људска права (The principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of constitutional courts and the European Court of Human Rights), Правни живот, vol. 12/2010, pp. 973-986
Пејић И., (2010), Уставна јемства и „границе“ ограничења људских права (Constitutional guarantees and the boundaries of human rights limitations), Правни живот, vol. 12/2010, pp. 851-864
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights:
Baka v. Hungary, App no 20261/12 (ECtHR, 23 June 2016)
Evans v. the United Kingdom, Аpp no 6339/05 (10 April 2007)
Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), App no 74025/01 (ECtHR, 6 October 2005)
Nada v. Switzerland, App no 10593/08 (ECtHR, 12 September 2012)
Perinçek v. , App no 27510/08 (ECtHR, 15 October 2015)
Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, Аpp no 50435/99 (ECtHR, 31 January 2006)
S.A.S. v. France, App no 43835/11 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014)
Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App nos 27996/06 34836/06 (ECtHR, 22 December 2009)
Silver and Others v the United Kingdom, App no 5947/72 6205/73 7052/75 7061/75 7107/75 7113/75 7136/75 (ECtHR, 25 March 1983)
Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, App no 68416/01 (ECtHR, 15 February 2005)
Uzun v. Germany, App no 35623/05 (ECtHR, 2 September 2010)
Decisions of the Constitutional Court of Serbia:
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia IУз-27/2009
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia Už-1123/2009
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia Už-26/2012
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Serbia VIIУ-249/2009, Official Gazette RS, 69/2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FULP1703235A
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN 1450-5517 (Print)
ISSN 2406-1786 (Online)