Proportionality in Its Narrow Sense and Measuring the Intensity of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights

Sampaio, Jorge Silva

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_4

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Before commenting on Burazin’s views on these conflicts, a few words need to be devoted to comparing his two contributions (2014 and 2018) and highlighting the way his thinking evolves from one to the other. First, the two studies are of different kinds: the first presents Burazin’s own view, while the latter comments on Sampaio’s (2018) proposal. Second, the conflicts are also different: antinomies between implicit principles in 2014, fundamental rights in 2018 (though the two are not alien to each other).…”

Section: Arguments For and Against The Predictability Of In Concreto mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Concreto Antinomies, Predictability, and Lawmaking

Feis

2020

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates whether or not cases of in concreto antinomies (ICAs for short, also called indirect antinomies, accidental antinomies, normative conflicts due to the facts, predicaments, or paranomies) can be predicted. I distinguish two main theoretical positions: " Prodetection" argues that we can predict in concreto antinomies; "unpredictability" argues that we cannot predict them. I exemplify the two positions by relying on a disagreement found in the literature; then, after reviewing that disagreement, I (i) provide arguments for both positions; (ii) highlight the problematic issues for a definition of in concreto antinomy based on conceptual independence; (iii) point out some problems in Martínez Zorrilla's threefold conception of normative conflicts; and (iv) advocate the need to introduce a case for "practically unpredictable" normative conflicts.

show abstract

Section: Arguments For and Against The Predictability Of In Concreto mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See at leastAlchourrón 1981Alchourrón , 1991Burazin 2014Burazin , 2018Chiassoni 2007; Guastini 2011a;Hamblin 1972;Hamner Hill 1987;Malgaud 1965;Martínez Zorrilla 2007, 2011aMunzer 1973;Sampaio 2018;Zucca 2008. In concreto antinomies are also referred to as indirect antinomies, accidental antinomies, conflicts of norms due to the facts, or paranomy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Concreto Antinomies, Predictability, and Lawmaking

Feis

2020

Ratio Juris

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Balancing sensu stricto is addressed in "EDPS Guidelines …" part III "Checklist for assessing the proportionality of new legislative measures". 34 Here are questions to be answered by the judge or other balancing person. 35 None of these questions is about the limitations and shortcomings of the The "EDPS Guidelines" also provides several examples of court decisions that relied on balancing.…”

Section: The Problem Of a Common Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in reality, this task often exceeds a person's real potential. How can a person predict a future court 34 EDPS Guidelines, supra note 2, 12-32. 35 "Are we in the presence of a pressing social need for restricting the right (to privacy and/or data protection)?…”

Section: Uncertainty Of Terms Used In the Balancing Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing Personal Data Protection with Other Human Rights and Public Interest: Between Theory and Practice

Justickis

2020

Baltic Journal of Law &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of balancing in the development and application of European data protection is enormous. European courts widely use it; it is the basis for harmonization of pan-European and national laws, plays a crucial role in everyday data protection. Therefore, the correctness of a huge number of critical decisions in the EU depends on the perfection of the balancing method. However, the real ability of the balancing method to cope with this mission has been subjected to intense criticism in the scientific literature. This criticism has highlighted its imperfections and casts doubt on its suitability to optimize the relation between competing rights. Paradoxically, the everyday practice of balancing tends to ignore this criticism. The limitations of the balancing method are typically not discussed and are not taken into account when considering legal cases and solving practical issues. Thus, it is tacitly assumed that the shortcomings and limitations of the balancing method, which the criticism points out, are irrelevant when making real-life decisions. This article discusses the scope of this phenomenon, its manifestations, and its impact on the quality of data protection decisions based on the balancing method:sub-optimality of these decisions, their opacity, public dissatisfaction with the legal regulation, its instability and low authority The ways of bridging the gap between the practice of balancing and science and broader consideration by the practice of the shortcomings of the balancing method identified during scientific discussions are considered.

show abstract

“…1474 Sampaio bemisst das konkrete Gewicht zusätzlich danach, inwieweit eine Beeinträchtigung vom Normalzustand abweicht. 1475 Ein ähnlicher Vorwurf wendet sich gegen sonstige zusätzliche Gewichtungsfaktoren, etwa gegen die von Smet konzipierten Kriterien wie den Aspekt, ob der Eingriff den Kern-oder den Randbereich des Schutzbereichs betrifft 1476 . Einerseits eröffnet ein solcher separater Gewichtungsfaktor neue Abgrenzungsschwierigkeiten und damit neue Wertungsspielräume.…”

Section: Aa Teilkomponenten Der Grundrechtsbeeinträchtigungunclassified

Rechtssichere Gewichtung von Eingriff und Rechtfertigung in der verfassungsrechtlichen Abwägung

Wekel¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Untersuchung versucht, eine rechtssichere Gewichtungsmethode der verfassungsrechtlichen Abwägung herauszuarbeiten. Zuerst definiert die Ausarbeitung dazu den Prüfungsmaßstab des Rechtssicherheitsgebots. Dabei wird auch erörtert, inwiefern der Rechtssicherheitsgrundsatz mit nicht unmittelbar sanktionsbewehrten ‚weichen‘ Vorgaben Normanwendungsverfahren verbindlich zu mehr Berechenbarkeit ermahnt als das Willkürverbot. Um solche konkretisierungsbedürftigen Anforderungen zu präzisieren, prüft der Autor die Verfahrensregeln des Diskurses und wissenschaftstheoretischer Modelle wie die des kritischen Rationalismus auf ihre Eignung als Richtwerte. Anhand dessen wird eruiert, wie sich Gewichtungsmethoden möglichst rechtssicher gestalten lassen. Hergebrachte Konzepte wie das von Alexy entwickelt der Autor dafür zu einem funktionalen Gewichtungsmodell fort. Dessen Form ist zweckmäßig darauf zugeschnitten, Spielräume zu minimieren und vorhersehbare Entscheidungen vorzugeben.

show abstract

Proportionality in Its Narrow Sense and Measuring the Intensity of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights

Cited by 9 publications

References 42 publications

In Concreto Antinomies, Predictability, and Lawmaking

In Concreto Antinomies, Predictability, and Lawmaking

Balancing Personal Data Protection with Other Human Rights and Public Interest: Between Theory and Practice

Rechtssichere Gewichtung von Eingriff und Rechtfertigung in der verfassungsrechtlichen Abwägung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About