The main objective of this study is to present a comparative legal analysis of proportionality. It provides a close examination of the key areas in which this principle has been applied, both at the national and supranational levels. The whole work is placed in the context of transformation of public law in the twentieth century. As many important general principles of law as applied by the Court of Justice have been borrowed from German and French law, a comparative study of the various forms which this principle has assumed in both German and French public law is presented. The book then offers an in-depth analysis of the application and impact of the principle of proportionality in EC law. The introduction and development of this principle by the Court of Justice represents one of the most striking examples of the interaction between the Community and national legal systems. It also illustrates the character of Community law as developed by the Court and the law-making function of the latter.

The proportionality principle has become ever more important in European law and elsewhere. The career of the principle has attracted considerable attention from legal practitioners, legal theorists and political scientists alike, but the debate so far has been quite fragmented. In this new book the author offers a broad and systematic analysis of the proportionality principle. Discussing and comparing proportionality analysis as applied by European courts in part one of the book, the author proceeds to contrast proportionality analysis with alternative assessment schemes. In the third part of the book the author reaches beyond doctrinal reconstructions as he deciphers the functions of proportionality jurisprudence. In view of the various facets of proportionality analysis the author departs from the asserted infringement of a legally protected position by some regulatory act, proceeds to discuss the legitimacy of this intervention and undertakes an analysis of its suitability, appropriateness and necessity. According to the author, the safe grounds of proportionality means-ends rationality do not suffice where the legitimacy of an infringement has to be assessed, where conflicting values have to be “balanced” or where courts engage in a proportionality analysis “stricto sensu”. In the concluding remarks, the author proposes how proportionality analysis may be structured in order to better secure the legitimacy of the analysis.

Proportionality analysis describes a particular legal technique of resolving conflicts between human rights or constitutional rights and public interests through a process of balancing. However, as a general tendency, the current vivid academic debate on proportionality pays insufficient attention to the institutional context - the question of judicial review. Based on the premise that proportionality analysis is a permissible approach to resolve conflicts between rights and other interests, this book lays out a strategy for courts and tribunals to deal with the challenge of using proportionality analysis in an adequate manner, taking into account their situation and context of judicial review. For this purpose, the book develops the concept of models of judicial review in a first theoretical chapter. These models are then applied to six comparative case studies in German and US constitutional law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union law, World Trade Organization law, and international investment law. (Series: European Administrative Law - Vol. 8)

Examining general principles of law provides one of the most instructive examples of the intersection between EU law and comparative law. This collection draws on the expertise of high-profile and distinguished scholars to provide a critical examination of this interaction. It shows how general principles of EU law need to be responsive to national laws. In addition, it is clear that the laws of the Member States have no choice but to be responsive to the general principles which are developed through EU law. Viewed through the perspective of proportionality, legal certainty, and fundamental rights, the dynamic relationship between the ingenuity of the Court of Justice, the legislative process and the process of Treaty revision is comprehensively illustrated.

This book of essays,the product of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in the spring of 1998, contains contributions from a group of extremely distinguished scholars in the fields of both public and private law. The meaning of proportionality is examined in a number of different contexts, including those of EC law, the domestic law of the Member States of the EU and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its substantive content and procedural implications are analysed and contrasted, in particular, with the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Its use in criminal and anti-discrimination law is also examined, as is its future likely impact in the UK after incorporation of the European Convention. Contributors: Paul Craig, Evelyn Ellis, David Feldman, Nicholas Green QC, Lord Hoffmann, Francis G. Jacobs, Jeremy McBride, Takis Tridimas, Walter van Gerven.

Proportionality is one of the most important principles in constitutional law, relevant throughout the law and in jurisdictions worldwide. Setting out the 'state of the art' in proportionality doctrine, this book combines theoretical reconstruction with case-law examples, defending and developing the dominant model of proportionality.

The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies provides a forum for the scrutiny of significant issues in EU Law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Comparative Law with a 'European' dimension, and particularly those issues which have come to the fore during the year preceding publication. The contributions appearing in the collection are commissioned by the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) Cambridge, a research centre in the Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge specialising in European legal issues. The papers presented are at the cutting edge of the fields which they address, and reflect the views of recognised experts drawn from the University world, legal practice, and the institutions of both the EU and its Member States. Inclusion of the comparative dimension brings a fresh perspective to the study of European law, and highlights the effects of globalisation of the law more generally, and the resulting cross fertilisation of norms and ideas that has occurred among previously sovereign and separate legal orders. The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies is an invaluable resource for those wishing to keep pace with legal developments in the fast moving world of European integration. SUBSCRIPTION TO SERIES To place an annual online subscription or a print standing order through Hart Publishing please click on the link below. Please note that any customers who have a standing order for the printed volumes will now be entitled to free online access. www.hartjournals.co.uk/cyels/subs Editorial Advisory Board John Bell Alan Dashwood Simon Deakin David Feldman Richard Fentiman Angus Johnston John R Spencer Founding Editors Alan Dashwood Angela Ward

In one of the most important publications on the European Convention and Court of Human Rights in recent years, a wide range of fundamental practical and theoretical problems of crucial importance are addressed in an original and critical way bringing a fresh, coherent and innovative order into well-known battle zones. The analysis revolves around the Court’s fair balance-test and comprises in-depth analyses of e.g. methods of interpretation, proportionality, the least onerous means-test, the notion of absolute rights, subsidiarity, formal and substantive principles, evidentiary standards, proceduralisation of substantive rights etc. The author coins the term of “primarity” in order to clarify the obligation of the Contracting Parties to implement the Convention in domestic law.

This book examines different legal systems and analyses how the judge in each of them performs a meaningful review of the proportional use of discretionary powers by public bodies. Although the proportionality test is not equally deep-rooted in the literature and case-law of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this principle has assumed an increasing importance partly due to the influence of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. In the United States, different standards of judicial review are applied to review ‘arbitrary and capricious’ agency discretion. However, do US judges achieve a similar result to the proportionality or reasonableness test? Drawing together a selection of key experts in the field, this book analyses the principle of proportionality in the judicial review of administrative decisions from different perspectives. The principle is first examined in the context of recent developments in the literature and case-law, including the inevitable EU influence, then light shall be shed on the meaning of this principle in the specific case-law of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the authors go on to explore the ways in which US judges consciously ‘sanction’ the ‘disproportionate’ and/or unreasonable’ use of agency discretion. In the legal systems where the proportionality test plays a very limited role, Ranchordás and de Waard also try to clarify why this is the case and look at what alternative solutions have been found. This book will be of great interest to scholars of public and administrative law, and EU law.

An in-depth analysis of the core legal concepts characterising the two most prominent efforts in the regulation of international trade.